DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................4

3.0 OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR .....................................................................8

3.1.1 Los Angeles County ................................................................................................9

3.1.2 Orange County ......................................................................................................11

3.1.3 San Diego County .................................................................................................13

4.0 RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR ....................................................14

4.1 Intercity Passenger Rail................................................................................................14

4.2 Commuter Rail..............................................................................................................15

4.2.1 Metrolink................................................................................................................15

4.2.2 Coaster..................................................................................................................16

4.3 Freight Service .............................................................................................................18

5.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR...........20

6.0 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES IN KEY LOCATIONS ...............................................30

6.1 Preliminary Options Not Carried Forward.....................................................................32

6.2 DEL MAR......................................................................................................................34

6.3 ENCINITAS ..................................................................................................................40

6.4 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY INLAND BYPASS ALTERNATIVE .................................44

6.5 SAN CLEMENTE/DANA POINT...................................................................................51

6.6 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ...........................................................................................59

7.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS.......................................................................64

8.0 A TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ..................66

8.1 San Diego County ........................................................................................................68

8.2 Orange County .............................................................................................................73

8.3 Los Angeles County .....................................................................................................75

9.0 FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS.....................................................................................76

APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................77

APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................99

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................105

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................107
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

FIGURE 2-1 – THE LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR..........................................................................................4

FIGURE 3-1 – MAP OF INTERCITY RAIL SERVICES SUPPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ................8

FIGURE 6-1 – LOCATIONS FOR SCREENING ........................................................................................31

FIGURE 6-2 – OPTIONS TO BE RETAINED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN DEL MAR...............................36

FIGURE 6-3 – OPTIONS TO BE SCREENED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN DEL MAR ........38

FIGURE 6-4 – TRAIN PASSING ALONG DEL MAR BLUFFS...................................................................39

FIGURE 6-5 – OPTIONS TO BE RETAINED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN ENCINITAS............................42

FIGURE 6-6 – OPTION TO BE ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN ENCINITAS......43

FIGURE 6-7 – GRADES WITHIN THE INLAND BYPASS ALTERNATIVE STUDY AREA AND 

TUNNELING REQUIRED ...................................................................................................................45

FIGURE 6-8 – OPTIONS TO BE RETAINED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN SAN CLEMENTE/DANA POINT

............................................................................................................................................................53

FIGURE 6-9 – OPTIONS TO BE ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN SAN 

CLEMENTE/DANA POINT..................................................................................................................57

FIGURE 6-10 – EXISTING RAIL CORRIDOR AT MARIPOSA POINT......................................................58

FIGURE 6-11 – OPTIONS RETAINED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

............................................................................................................................................................61

FIGURE 6-12 – OPTION TO BE ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN SAN JUAN 

CAPISTRANO.....................................................................................................................................63

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

EXHIBIT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 RELATIVE COSTS/PERFORMANCE IMPACTS AND 

BENEFITS OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

......................................................................................................................following page 3 

EXHIBIT 8-1 TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

............................................................................................................between pages 68 & 69 

EXHIBIT 8-2 RELATIVE COSTS/PERFORMANCE IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF LOSSAN 

CORRIDOR RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.......................................between pages 68 & 69 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The LOSSAN (Los Angeles to San Diego and San Luis Obispo) Rail Corridor is one of 

the busiest, most important rail lines in the United States, and serves a vital function in 

providing intercity and commuter rail services within and between cities in California’s 

most populous counties. The area of the LOSSAN corridor studied in the Department’s 

Proposed Rail Corridor Improvement Studies and this document, however, is that portion 

of the corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and San Diego Santa Fe Depot; 

hereafter, use of the term “LOSSAN” will refer to that segment only. 

The California Department of Transportation (the Department) has determined that the 

creation of a Strategic Plan is an important and beneficial adjunct to its ongoing Program 

EIR/EIS (PEIR/PEIS) process recommending conventional rail improvements for the 

LOSSAN corridor. This complementary planning document looks at the proposed rail 

improvements from a corridor-wide perspective. In supporting the PEIR/PEIS work 

underway, the Strategic Plan’s objectives are: 

• To provide an additional opportunity for public outreach, beyond that provided as 

part of PEIR/EIS process 

• To foster better communication and understanding among stakeholders at all 

levels 

• To provide an opportunity to screen out design options at key locations, so as to 

focus future work on the most promising alternatives 

• To develop short and long-term visions for the corridor, contemplating a program 

of projects for the next twenty years. 

The Strategic Plan met these objectives through a series of public workshops held in 

cities along the corridor. Five Public Workshops were held. The workshops provided 

the public with an overview of the corridor and the rail improvements under study, 

including information on: 

• The purpose and goals of the Strategic Plan 

• The need for improvements to the corridor 

• Current and projected weekday train volumes 

• Corridor facts, including rail owners and operators and details on Freight services 

• Types of services provided (Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight) 

• The Strategic Plan timetable 

• Ranges of costs, rail performance issues, and community/environmental issues 

of projects throughout the corridor 

• Design options and alternatives at four key locations along the corridor where the 

range of options was sufficiently broad to allow the screening out of some 

options, the recommendations for screening, and the rationale and criteria used 

to reach the recommended screening decisions. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Page 2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The Planning Process, including timelines for the completion of the Strategic 

Plan, and the Department’s Draft Program-level Environmental Impact 

Reports/Environmental Impact Statement. 

In addition to the public workshops, meetings were held with corridor cities as well as 

working groups consisting of transportation agencies and other stakeholders, resource 

agencies, rail operators, and partners Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)1

 and the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority)2. These meetings helped to foster the 

sense of understanding regarding the corridor, its current and future needs, and how the 

proposed improvements could not only meet train service and performance goals, but 

could offer solutions to long-standing issues of community and environmental concern. 

Through the consultative process used in the development of the Strategic Plan, new 

alternatives were presented by the South Orange County Rail Working Group, leading to 

possible design options. 

Screening of design options at key locations – Del Mar, Encinitas, San Clemente/Dana 

Point, and San Juan Capistrano – as well as evaluation of whether or not to conduct an 

Inland Bypass Alternative Study are other products of this Strategic Plan process. 

Recommendations from the screening process include: 

• In Del Mar, eliminate the option of double-tracking in the existing corridor along the 

Coastal Bluffs, and continue to evaluate relocating the rail corridor into one of two 

tunnel options 

• In Encinitas, eliminate the option of lowering the existing alignment into a long trench 

throughout the length of the city, and continue to evaluate either at-grade doubletracking with grade separations at major intersections, or constructing a short trench 

that would provide the same benefits as a long trench at a greatly reduced cost 

• In San Clemente, eliminate options of double-tracking in the existing rail corridor 

along the beach, and continue evaluating relocation of the rail lines from beaches 

and the city’s Pier Bowl area into a tunnel 

• In San Juan Capistrano, eliminate the option of double-tracking in the existing rail 

alignment located close to significant community and historical resources, and 

continue evaluating both an at-grade/trench option and a tunnel option 

• Eliminate from further consideration an Inland Bypass Alternative in South Orange 

County, due to fundamental concerns regarding constructability, and severe impacts 

to the environment, cost, system performance and operations. 

Finally, the Strategic Plan provides the opportunity to discuss a program of projects as 

part of addressing the corridor’s future infrastructure and service needs. The Strategic 

Business Plan, through its evaluation of the relative merits of each project – the costs, 

benefits, and any potential issues and impacts – has created a program of projects. The 

Strategic Plan is a tool that can be used by policymakers to identify and prioritize the 

 

1

 The Federal Railroad Administration is the federal lead agency for both the Department and Authority’s Program EIR/EIS 

processes. FRA is also involved in administering federal funding to and supporting the development of policy regarding the nation's 

existing intercity passenger rail systems. 

2

 The Authority is partnering with the Department in its examination of the LOSSAN corridor. The Authority is in the final process of 

developing an EIR/EIS for its statewide high-speed rail system. While this electrified, grade-separated system might run as far 

south as either Anaheim or Irvine, the corridor is important to the Authority in its role as a feeder network to the statewide system, 

and the improvements proposed would strengthen the corridor’s ability to serve that role. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Page 3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

order in which rail improvement projects should (subject to availability of funding) move 

to the next steps of: 

• Identifying and programming projects for future funding, and securing local or 

regional matching funds 

• Securing project-specific environmental clearance 

• Performing preliminary engineering 

• Completing the project’s final design 

• Obtaining the necessary permits, and 

• Constructing the corridor improvements. 

As part of the information gathered in the Strategic Plan, a draft timeline and schedule 

for the recommended rail improvement projects was created. This draft timeline is the 

result of collaboration with the public, cities along the corridor, transportation agencies 

and rail operators, as well as the Department, the Authority, and FRA. The result is a 

“plan of action” for improvements to the LOSSAN corridor over the short term (the next 

three years), the medium-term (4-6 years from now), and the long-term (7 years and 

beyond). The time periods mentioned are measured following the final release of the 

PEIR/PEIS. As well, a listing of the projects, their relative costs, the impacts and 

benefits to train performance, and community and environmental issues associated with 

each was created, and is included as Exhibit Executive Summary 1 (following page). 

The Strategic Plan process has yielded an important benefit to the PEIR/PEIS process, 

saving time, energy and resources, advancing the timeline for completion of the 

environmental review process, and creating a document which will be useful not only as 

a planning tool, but one which can be used by Planning Agencies in making funding 

applications and in making programming decisions regarding rail projects in their 

respective areas. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 4 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Figure 2-1 – Southern California Intercity Transportation Network 

This figure shows the 127.5-mile portion of the LOSSAN corridor stretching from Los 

Angeles Union Station south to San Diego’s Santa Fe Depot. Figure 2-1 above also 

shows ownership information for this segment of the rail corridor, as well as other 

important elements of Southern California’s Transportation Network, including major 

highways and airports within the metropolitan areas. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 5 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Introduction 

For the past two years, the California Department of Transportation (the Department), 

has been studying a series of improvements to the Los Angeles to San Diego and San 

Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor, used by Amtrak, Metrolink, Coaster and the 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The area of the LOSSAN corridor 

studied in the Department’s Proposed Rail Corridor Improvement Studies and this 

document, however, is that portion of the corridor between Los Angeles Union Station 

and San Diego Santa Fe Depot; hereafter, use of the term “LOSSAN” will refer to that 

segment only. The studies are being done in cooperation with the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority (the Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

FRA is the federal lead agency, under the terms of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), for these collaborative studies. FRA’s Office of Railroad Development 

oversees federal investment, development and implementation of Administration policy 

regarding intercity rail passenger service. The programmatic nature of the Department’s 

study would allow improvements and projects with “corridor-wide utility” to be eligible for 

Federal funding. Future project-specific environmental documents could be tiered from 

the Department’s program-level EIR/EIS, but would retain their eligibility for Federal 

funding through their association with the original document. 

The State of California, through the Department’s Division of Rail, supports three Amtrak 

intercity passenger rail services, including the LOSSAN corridor’s Pacific Surfliner. The 

Department provides funding and planning assistance for these routes, including 

operating and capital grants for station and equipment improvements. Its Program-level 

EIR/EIS will identify incremental improvements on the corridor. 

For this project, the Department is both the project sponsor and the lead agency for 

purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The 

Department has determined that a Program EIR is the appropriate document for the 

project at this conceptual stage of planning and decision-making, which would involve 

defining and evaluating incremental improvements, alternative corridors, station 

improvements, and phasing options. 

Why A Strategic Plan? 

The Department has determined that the creation of a Strategic Plan for the LOSSAN 

Corridor is an important, beneficial, and complementary adjunct to its ongoing Program 

EIR/EIS process. The purposes of the Strategic Plan include: 

• To provide an additional opportunity for public outreach, beyond that provided as 

part of PEIR/EIS process 

• To foster better communication and understanding among stakeholders at all 

levels 

• To provide an opportunity to screen out design options at key locations, so as to 

focus the Program EIR/EIS on the most promising alternatives 

• To develop short and long-term visions for the corridor, contemplating a program 

of projects for the next twenty years. 

This document has been structured to address these objectives. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 6 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A Constructive Dialogue 

There are formal Scoping periods associated with an EIR/EIS process. During these 

periods, public meetings are held and the public has an opportunity to comment on the 

process and the alternatives to be studied. However, once the Scoping period has 

closed, it is not reopened, and normally the next opportunity to comment would be 

during the formal comment period, following the release of the Draft PEIR/EIS. There 

was an expressed interest on the part of some of public and communities located along 

the corridor, particularly in some of the key locations where screening recommendations 

were under consideration, that they be given additional opportunities to comment and to 

be involved in the planning of LOSSAN rail improvements, above and beyond those 

provided in the Program-level EIR/EIS process – and before release of the Draft 

PEIR/EIS. The Strategic Plan, and the public workshops held during its preparation 

facilitated an additional opportunity for the public to review and comment on the 

proposed improvements, as well as on the recommendations for eliminating some 

options from further evaluation. 

There are some significant differences among the various design options under 

consideration in the LOSSAN corridor study, and community and environmental impacts 

associated with each. The Strategic Plan process provided information pertaining to the 

corridor and solicited input from the public and resource agencies in advance of the Draft 

PEIR/EIS. 

Working Group meetings held during the development of the Strategic Plan provided 

continuing communication and interaction between the Department, the Authority, the 

consultant team, the directly affected cities, transportation agencies and other 

stakeholders. Representatives also met with individual cities along the corridor as 

needed. As well, the public workshops conducted helped to educate and inform the 

public about the corridor, the rail operators and services provided, the proposed 

improvement projects, and those options recommended for elimination. 

The strong interactive process used in the Strategic Plan contributed to an increased 

understanding among stakeholders at all levels and to a better understanding about the 

LOSSAN corridor today, what is needed for the future of the corridor, and how these 

future needs could best be met. Sections 3, 4, and 5 summarize key facts about the 

LOSSAN corridor. 

Focusing Our Efforts 

The second purpose behind the Strategic Plan is to make recommendations for 

screening of design options at key locations along the corridor. This screening will save 

time, effort, and resources that would be otherwise required to study alternatives that are 

later determined to be infeasible and inferior to other alternatives. The Department’s 

internal review and acceptance of the Strategic Plan following the receipt of comments 

from agencies and the public, will document its acceptance of the screening 

recommendations. The locations, options, recommendations and underlying rationale 

behind the recommendations are detailed in Section 6, while Section 7 reviews public 

and agency comments on the screening recommendations and on the Strategic Plan in 

general. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 7 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Developing A Vision 

The development of a program of projects is part of addressing the corridor’s future 

infrastructure and service needs. The Strategic Plan, through its evaluation of the 

relative merits of each project (the costs, benefits, and any potential issues and impacts) 

has created a program of projects. The Strategic Plan is a tool that can be used by 

policymakers to identify and prioritize the order in which rail improvement projects should 

move to the next steps of: 

• Identifying and programming projects for future funding, and securing local or 

regional matching funds 

• Securing project-specific environmental clearance 

• Performing preliminary engineering 

• Obtaining the necessary permits 

• Completing of the project’s final design, and 

• Constructing corridor improvements. 

As part of the information gathered in the Strategic Plan, a draft timeline and schedule 

for the recommended rail improvement projects was created. This draft timeline is the 

result of collaboration with the public, cities along the corridor, transportation agencies 

and rail operators, as well as the Department, the Authority, and FRA. The result is a 

“plan of action” for improvements to the LOSSAN corridor over the short term (the next 

three years), the medium-term (4-6 years from now), and the long-term (7 years and 

beyond). The timeline, and next steps, are discussed in Sections 8 and 9. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 8 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

3.0 OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

The LOSSAN (Los Angeles to San Diego) Rail Corridor provides rail access between the 

most populated counties in California: Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. This 

127.5-mile rail corridor carries intercity passenger rail service, commuter rail service, and 

freight. In this section, an overview of the corridor is provided, including information on 

the cities along the route, the surrounding land uses, existing stations (and those under 

construction), and the rail services in those areas. 

The LOSSAN corridor is one of the busiest rail corridors in the United States, and a 

major transportation resource in Southern California. The Pacific Surfliner intercity 

passenger rail service, provided by Amtrak and sponsored by the California Department 

of Transportation (one of three Intercity Passenger Rail services so supported by the 

Department, as shown in Figure 3.1), is the second most-heavily traveled passenger rail 

corridor (outside of the Northeast Corridor between Washington D.C. and Boston). The 

LOSSAN corridor is the only rail link between Los Angeles and San Diego. 

Figure 3-1 – Map of Intercity Rail Services Supported by the Department 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 9 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Until 1992, BNSF’s predecessor, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, owned the 

LOSSAN rail corridor. In that year, the rail right-of-way (excluding the segment between 

Redondo and Fullerton Junctions) was sold to the Southern California transportation 

agencies in the counties through which the rails pass. As part of the sale, BNSF 

retained the right in perpetuity to use the railroads to provide freight service to its 

customers. As shown in Exhibit 3-1, the corridor has a variety of owners, including: 

• In Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority and BNSF 

• In Orange County, Orange County Transportation Authority 

• In San Diego County, the North San Diego County Transit Development Board 

(from Oceanside to near SR-52) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit 

Development Board (from SR-52 south) 

There is tremendous variation in the nature of the built and natural environments along 

the LOSSAN corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. The following subsections 

describe the communities along the rail corridor, existing rail stations (both serving 

Amtrak intercity rail and commuter rail), and the land uses surrounding the corridor as it 

passes through: 

• Los Angeles County 

• Orange County 

• San Diego County 

3.1.1 Los Angeles County 

In Los Angeles County, the built environment is very urbanized. From Los Angeles 

Union Station south, the LOSSAN corridor is surrounded by predominantly industrial, 

light industrial, freight yards and rail operations, with adjacent residential communities 

becoming more frequent further south and east. 

In Los Angeles County the LOSSAN corridor passes through the cities and communities 

of: 

• Los Angeles 

• Vernon 

• Commerce 

• Montebello 

• Pico Rivera 

• Santa Fe Springs 

• Norwalk 

• La Mirada 

Current services that operate along the corridor in Los Angeles County include Amtrak 

Intercity Passenger Rail service, Metrolink Commuter Rail service, and BNSF Freight 

Rail service. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 10 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Stations 

Stations currently served along this segment of the LOSSAN corridor by both intercity 

and commuter service include: 

• Los Angeles Union Station 

• Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 11 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

3.1.2 Orange County 

As the rail corridor moves south into Orange County, the character of the surrounding 

uses continues to change, with commercial/light industrial uses giving way to residential 

uses. 

Current services that operate along the corridor in Orange County include Amtrak 

Intercity Passenger Rail service, Metrolink Commuter Rail service, and BNSF Freight 

Rail service. 

North Orange County 

As the LOSSAN corridor crosses into North Orange County, the land uses remain a 

mixture of commercial/light industrial, with increasing concentrations of adjacent 

residential neighborhoods, especially in North Orange County’s older communities, 

which grew up around the rail line. In Anaheim, the corridor skirts Edison Field, and in 

Santa Ana, passes near the downtown area. 

In North Orange County, the LOSSAN Corridor passes through the cities of: 

• Buena Park 

• Fullerton 

• Anaheim 

• Orange 

• Santa Ana 

• Tustin 

Stations 

North Orange County stations along the LOSSAN corridor include: 

• Fullerton Transportation Center (Amtrak and Metrolink) 

• Anaheim Transportation Center (Amtrak and Metrolink) 

• Orange Transportation Center (Metrolink only) 

• Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (Amtrak and Metrolink) 

• Tustin Metrolink Station (Metrolink only) 

A Buena Park Metrolink station is currently under construction. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 12 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

South Orange County 

The adjacent land uses in South Orange County are largely residential in character, 

along with some commercial/light industrial developments, parcels of open space, and 

agricultural properties. The LOSSAN corridor travels through the center of San Juan 

Capistrano, and at Dana Point begins a short segment that runs directly along the 

coastline in the cities of Dana Point and San Clemente. 

Communities 

In South Orange County, the LOSSAN Corridor passes through quite a few cities 

including: 

• Irvine 

• Lake Forest 

• Mission Viejo 

• Laguna Hills 

• Laguna Niguel 

• San Juan Capistrano 

• Dana Point 

• San Clemente 

Stations 

Stations in the South Orange County segment of the LOSSAN corridor include: 

• Irvine Transportation Center (Amtrak and Metrolink) 

• Mission Viejo/Laguna Niguel Metrolink Station (Metrolink only) 

• San Juan Capistrano Depot (Amtrak and Metrolink) 

• San Clemente Metrolink Station (Metrolink only) 

• San Clemente Pier (Seasonal Amtrak service only) 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 13 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

OVERVIEW OF THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR

3.1.3 San Diego County 

Throughout San Diego County, the LOSSAN corridor remains close to the coast, and 

passes directly through many of the county’s coastal communities. Land uses in the 

north of San Diego County consist of the vast Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and 

then transition to coastal communities, with a blend of commercial, light industrial, and 

residential uses. 

In North San Diego County, the LOSSAN Corridor passes through the cities of: 

• Oceanside 

• Carlsbad 

• Encinitas (including the communities of Leucadia and Cardiff-by-the-Sea) 

• Solana Beach 

• Del Mar 

• The City of San Diego communities of Sorrento Valley, Miramar, University City, 

Clairemont, Bay Park, Old Town, Middletown, and Centre City. 

Current services that operate along the corridor in San Diego County include Amtrak 

Intercity Passenger Rail service, Metrolink and Coaster Commuter Rail services, and 

BNSF Freight Rail service. 

Stations 

Stations along this segment of the LOSSAN corridor include: 

• Oceanside Transportation Center (Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster) 

• Downtown Carlsbad (Coaster only) 

• Carlsbad Poinsettia Station (Coaster only) 

• Downtown Encinitas (Coaster only) 

• Solana Beach Station (Amtrak, Coaster) 

• Sorrento Valley Coaster Station (Coaster only) 

• Nobel Drive Coaster Station (Coaster only) – under construction, opening 2004 

• Old Town Transit Center (Coaster only) 

• Santa Fe Depot (Amtrak and Coaster) 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 14 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

4.0 RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

There are three major categories of rail services provided on the LOSSAN corridor, 

Intercity Passenger Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight Rail. The following sections 

provide a description of each, as well as information on the equipment used, numbers of 

trains per day, and assessments of future service levels. 

4.1 Intercity Passenger Rail 

Description 

Intercity Passenger Rail service offers travelers a convenient way to move between 

major metropolitan areas, and is an alternative to the automobile, bus, or airplane. In 

the LOSSAN Corridor, intercity passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak’s Pacific 

Surfliner service. Amtrak operates this service with significant operational and capital 

funding support from the Department. 

Statistics 

Equipment used

The Pacific Surfliner operates with some of the newest, state-of-the-art rail 

equipment in America – its locomotives are F59PHI “California” locomotives, 

manufactured by General Motors, operating the cleanest-burning diesel engines 

available, and streamlined to reduce wind resistance. 

Pacific Surfliner coaches are an Amtrak “Superliner” variation of the bi-level 

California Cars used on the other two Department-sponsored intercity rail routes 

(the Capitol and the San Joaquin). 

Current operational levels

The Pacific Surfliner runs 365 days a year, with at least eleven trains in each 

direction daily (and additional service – 13 northbound trains and 12 southbound 

trains – provided on weekends and holidays), for total of between 22 and 25 

trains each day. 

Planned Operational Levels

Amtrak’s California Passenger Rail System Improvement Plan Technical Report 

(March 2001), calls for hourly Pacific Surfliner service on the corridor by 2020. 

This increase in service would be implemented incrementally – from the current 

11 daily roundtrips to 14 (by 2006), and ultimately to 16 (by 2020). 

The major challenge to this ability to provide additional service is the insufficient 

main line track necessary to support this level of service. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 15 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Ridership (current and projected)

The Pacific Surfliner currently carries more than 1.5 million passengers a year. 

Projected yearly ridership is forecast to rise in the near term (2006) to 3.3 million 

passengers, and by 2020 to 5.76 million passengers. 

4.2 Commuter Rail 

Commuter Rail service is primarily designed to meet the work travel needs of daily 

commuters. Consequently, the service operates primarily Monday through Friday during 

peak commute hours, with the bulk of trains traveling in the primary commute direction. 

Limited evening and weekend services may be provided. Commuter Rail service on the 

LOSSAN Corridor is provided by two different services: Metrolink and Coaster. 

4.2.1 Metrolink 

Description 

Metrolink is the name for the commuter rail service provided by the Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). SCRRA is a Joint Powers Authority formed by Los 

Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties in 1991, to create 

and operate a regional passenger rail network within its five-county area. Within the 

LOSSAN Corridor, Metrolink operates between Los Angeles Union Station and 

Oceanside Transit Center. 

Metrolink headways vary between one half hour to 3 hours, depending on the direction 

of operation, time of day, and the segment of the corridor in which the train is operating. 

Metrolink operates Monday through Friday, with no weekend service. 

Statistics 

Equipment used

Similar to Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink operates F59PH and F59PHI 

“California” locomotives, both manufactured by General Motors. 

Passenger cars used by Metrolink are Bi-level Commuter Coaches manufactured 

by Bombardier. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 16 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Current operational levels

Currently, Metrolink provides a range of service levels along the LOSSAN 

corridor, including: 

• 28 trains each weekday between Los Angeles Union Station and the 

Fullerton Transportation Center in North Orange County 

• 31 trains between the Fullerton Transportation Center and the Irvine 

Transportation Center 

• 19 trains between Irvine and San Juan Capistrano, and 

• 12 trains operate as far south as Oceanside in North San Diego County. 

Planned operational levels

Recent forecast data provided by Metrolink for the year 2020 project up to 54 

trains operating between Los Angeles Union Station and Irvine, up to 22 trains 

between Irvine and San Juan Capistrano, and 17 trains south of San Juan 

Capistrano. 

Ridership 

Metrolink’s most recent ridership numbers indicate that it carries 8,705 

passengers on its Orange County and Inland Empire to Orange County lines 

each weekday. 

4.2.2 Coaster 

Description 

The commuter rail service in San Diego County is “The Coaster”, operated by North 

County Transit District (NCTD). Coaster provides service between Oceanside and San 

Diego, at headways similar to those of Metrolink. 

Statistics 

Equipment used

NCTD’s Coaster commuter service currently uses modified F40PHM and F59PHI 

(“California”) locomotives, both manufactured by General Motors. 

As with Metrolink, passenger cars used by Coaster are Bi-level Commuter 

Coaches manufactured by Bombardier. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 17 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Current operational levels

The Coaster operates 22 trains a day between the Oceanside Transportation 

Center and Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego, at headways similar to 

those of Metrolink. Currently, 4 trains operate each Saturday with headways of 

approximately 2 to 3 hours in each direction. 

Planned operational levels

Coaster commuter operations by 2020 are expected to increase to 54 trains each 

weekday between Oceanside and San Diego with an expected increase in 

weekend service as well. 

Ridership

Most recent numbers for Coaster (April 2003) show average weekday ridership 

of 5,179. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 18 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

4.3 Freight Service 

Description 

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway (which owns the rail line from 

Los Angeles to Fullerton) provides freight service on the LOSSAN corridor. That portion 

of the LOSSAN corridor is part of BNSF’s primary intercontinental corridor from the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach to all of North America. However, the majority of these 

trains continue east past Fullerton towards the Inland Empire. 

The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) is the sole freight rail operator 

between Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego. Currently, BNSF has no active 

customers between Del Mar and Oceanside. In North San Diego County, the only 

regular customer serviced by the BNSF is the Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton. 

Freight service within this corridor is focused in the following three areas: 

• Auto Transload Service in San Diego 

• Lumber, Fly Ash, and Cement 

• Local Freight Service (Service to Escondido and Miramar) 

Statistics 

Equipment Used

BNSF service along the LOSSAN rail corridor uses several different locomotive 

types depending on the freight service necessary. Standard locomotives used 

along the corridor can include Dash 8-40CW’s and Dash 9-44CW’s 

manufactured by GE and among the newest class of engines purchased by the 

BNSF, and General Motors built SD9’s, GP10’s, GP35’s and GP38-2’s. 

Standard freight rail equipment is used along the corridor consisting of box, 

hopper, flat and tank cars, gondolas and auto cars. 

Current operational levels

BNSF information provided shows the railway currently operates 6 to 8 freight 

trains along the length of the rail corridor from Los Angeles to San Diego within a 

24-hour period each day. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 19 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

RAIL SERVICES ALONG THE LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

Planned operational levels

Future service along the corridor segment from Fullerton to San Diego is not 

expected to increase beyond 9 to 12 trains within a 24-hour time period by 2020, 

regardless of improvements along the existing rail corridor, according to recent 

forecasts developed by the Los Angeles Economic Development Council (BNSF 

does not provide public information regarding future operational projections.) 

Freight Issues 

Concerns about freight traffic make up a substantial number of the questions asked at 

public meetings. On the LOSSAN Corridor, freight traffic forms just a small portion of the 

total number of trains, now and in projections of daily train volumes for 2020. 

The following subsection provides background information on freight issues as they 

relate to the LOSSAN corridor, including: 

• Continuing Railroad Ownership of part of LOSSAN corridor 

• BNSF Freight Operations 

• Constraints on Rail Operations 

• Concerns regarding the Port of Ensenada (Mexico) 

As noted in Section 3.0, BNSF continues to own a segment of the LOSSAN Corridor, 

from Redondo Junction in Los Angeles to Fullerton Junction in North Orange County. 

This portion is part of BNSF’s transcontinental system, and much of the nation’s rail 

traffic passes through here, on its way from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to 

the rest of the country (by way of the Inland Empire). 

Only a small number of the average 45 daily BNSF freight trains – between six and eight 

– move between Los Angeles and San Diego. These trains serve local customers along 

the way, and are used for bulk goods movement and the transfer of automobiles from 

the Port of San Diego. By 2020, it is forecast that prevailing economic conditions would 

likely increase the daily number of trains to between nine and 12. 

The largest constraint on freight rail operations within the corridor is the shared-use 

agreement BNSF has between Metrolink in Orange County and Coaster in San Diego 

County, negotiated as part of the sale of the corridor in 1992. The shared-use 

agreement states that commuter and intercity trains shall be dispatched with first priority 

over any BNSF train. The agreement also established a “restricted freight period” during 

peak commuter hours in which BNSF trains, unless otherwise authorized, may not 

operate along the mainline. 

There has been concern that expansion of cargo-handling facilities at Mexico’s Port of 

Ensenada might result in an increase in freight train levels on the LOSSAN corridor. No 

freight trains currently travel between the Port of Ensenada and the United States, as no 

rail corridor currently exists. Mexico’s own national rail plan indicates that future rail 

freight service from Ensenada would head east, connecting to an existing rail corridor, 

the San Diego and Eastern Railroad, from which the freight traffic would move further 

east. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 20 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

5.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 

LOSSAN CORRIDOR 

The Program level EIR/EIS Purpose and Need Statement details the major purposes of 

and need for improvements to the LOSSAN corridor. These are summarized below, as 

additional background. 

Reduce running times – Delays associated with operating on a single track (including 

waiting at sidings) as well as speed restrictions adversely affect existing running times in 

the LOSSAN corridor. The addition of double-tracking, as well as the grade separations, 

trenches and tunnels proposed in this study would greatly reduce running times for 

trains. The elimination of these delays would benefit current intercity passenger rail 

travelers and attract new passengers. Reduced running times would also benefit the 

two commuter rail operations on the corridor, Metrolink and Coaster. 

Increase capacity on existing routes – As the corridor is largely single-tracked, there 

are a finite number of trains that can be operated safely, limiting the capacity of existing 

service. Only one train can be in a single-tracked section at a time, requiring trains at 

either end of the single-tracked section to wait for the first train to pass before they can 

proceed. Consequently only so many trains can operate along the route at one time. 

The double tracking included in the proposed improvements would allow for additional 

trains to operate simultaneously, and no train would have to wait at sidings. This would 

provide additional train/passenger-carrying capacity along the existing routes for all 

operators. 

Increase cost-effectiveness – The proposed improvements to the LOSSAN corridor 

would greatly reduce the trip time between cities along the line, making intercity 

passenger rail a more attractive travel option, and allowing for additional daily trips. The 

reduced travel time would help attract new passengers to the service. Increased 

ridership of the Pacific Surfliner service would improve the cost-effectiveness of the 

Department’s support by lowering the operating subsidy per passenger, and freeing up 

funds to be used for other purposes, such as equipment, station (and station area) 

improvements. These travel time improvements would also greatly benefit the two 

commuter rail operations on the corridor, Metrolink and Coaster. 

Improve Safety – Safety is a primary consideration of intercity passenger rail systems, 

both for the passengers, crew and the train, as well as for pedestrians, drivers and 

vehicles who interact with the rail corridor at roadway and pedestrian crossings. The 

proposed improvements would provide for improved safety along the rail corridor, 

eliminating many at-grade crossings and establishing new pedestrian crossings. 

Additionally, tunnels and trenches in some areas would reduce the interaction between 

pedestrians, vehicles and trains, especially in key locations such as along the Del Mar 

Bluffs, in Encinitas, along the beach and bluffs in the cities of San Clemente and Dana 

Point, and in the downtown area of San Juan Capistrano. 

Improved transportation options for youth, the elderly, and the disabled – An 

additional benefit of the proposed improvements to the LOSSAN corridor is that the 

enhanced rail service resulting from the projects in the study would improve intercity 

transportation options for those who do not, or cannot operate an automobile, including 

youth, the elderly, and the disabled. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 21 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Provide for greater links between transportation modes – The improvements 

proposed in this study would allow for the construction and improvement of stations 

along the corridor, including the potential construction of new stations in San Diego (at 

University Towne Centre), San Clemente, and San Juan Capistrano. These facilities 

would be multi-modal, serving not just intercity passenger rail, but commuter rail, and 

local and regional transit service. The rail improvements proposed would provide for 

greater integration of transportation modes, and the improved service (increased 

frequency and reduced travel times) creates an opportunity for local communities and 

regional transit operators to coordinate bus service with train arrivals/departures. As 

well, linkages between emerging areas of population growth (especially in South Orange 

County and North San Diego County) and major employment centers would be 

strengthened. 

The need for improvements within the LOSSAN corridor is demonstrated by Southern 

California’s insufficient capacity to meeting existing and future demand in the corridor 

along with air quality concerns, reduced reliability, and increased travel times due to the 

associated congestion. The interstate highway system and the existing passenger rail 

system serving the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity. 

This intercity rail system has not been keeping pace with the tremendous increase in 

population and tourism in the state. Simply stated, the need for improvements to the 

corridor relates to: 

 Future growth in travel demand for passenger trips between Los Angeles, Orange 

and San Diego Counties 

 Rail capacity constraints resulting in congestion and travel delays 

 Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion, delays, weather conditions, 

accidents and other factors 

 Accidents on intercity highways and railways in congested travel corridors, and the 

potential for accidents at at-grade crossings as highway and rail traffic volumes 

increase 

 Continuing air quality issues 

 Pressures on natural resources and habitats from highway construction, motor 

vehicle use and congestion 

The LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan assists in meeting these needs by laying out a 

vision and plan for the improvement of the LOSSAN rail corridor over time. It provides a 

comparative view of potential projects along the corridor, gives information on relative 

costs, and shows how the projects will benefit train service and performance and 

address community and environmental issues. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 22 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Figure 5-1– Projected population growth for Southern California

The Program-level EIR/EIS Purpose and Need Statement provides additional 

background on the needs for the PEIR/EIS, of which the Strategic Plan is a supportive 

document. These needs include: 

Future growth in population 

In the two decades from 2000 to 2020, California’s population is expected to increase by 

31 percent, from 34.7 million to 45.4 million residents. Southern California’s share of the 

population increase over the same period is forecast to be 3.4 million (or 23-percent), as 

shown in Figure 2-2. By 2020, just under half of the total statewide population will live in 

Southern California. This dramatic growth in population, and the increased travel 

demand that will accompany it helps drive the need for improvements to the LOSSAN 

corridor, an important component of Southern California’s transportation network, and a 

rail corridor of national significance. 

Future growth in travel demand 

Although the primary focus of this study is the improvement of the intercity passenger 

rail system, the total travel demand along the LOSSAN corridor is the result of the 

combination of the intercity, commuter and freight services. The demand for each 

service is described in the following sections, followed by a summary of the overall 

existing and proposed capacity of the rail corridor. 

Intercity Trips

Intercity travel in California is projected 

to grow by 35 percent over the next 

twenty years, from 155 million trips to 

209 million trips. For Southern 

California, defined here as the Counties 

of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego, 

intercity travel is expected to grow by 

approximately 23.4 percent over a 23-

year time span, from 36 million trips in 

1997, to approximately 47 million in 

2020.3

 Statewide, auto trips account for 

over 84 percent of all intercity travel 

and over 58 percent of the longer 

trips. In Southern California, this is even more pronounced, as the automobile currently 

dominates intercity travel. Table 2.1 below identifies the growth in traffic volume on the 

major highway link between Los Angeles and San Diego from 2000 to 2020. Automobile 

travel between Los Angeles and San Diego is currently the second largest geographic 

travel market in the state, accounting for 34.9 million trips in 1997. 

Table 5.1 – Average Daily Traffic Volumes between Los Angeles and San Diego 

Major Highway Avg. Daily 

Volume 2000 

Avg. Daily 

Volume 2020 

% Change 

2000 - 2020 

I-5 between Downtown Los Angeles and 

Downtown San Diego 221,900 270,193 18% 

Sources: The Department, OCTA, SCAG, and SANDAG 

 

3

 Charles River Associates Incorporated, Independent Ridership and Passenger Revenue Projections for High Speed Rail 

Alternatives in California, January 2000 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 23 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Currently, this intercity corridor is also the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the 

nation, carrying approximately 4,700 riders each day (1.7 million riders annually)4

 along 

the entire Pacific Surfliner corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego. Of this service, 

the segment between Los Angeles and San Diego has a current daily ridership of 3,900 

(1.4 million riders annually). Intercity rail travel is anticipating exponential growth within 

the next 20 years. In 2001, Amtrak’s 20-Year Improvement Plan projected 2005 and 

2020 ridership along the rail corridor from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, using the total 

travel demand growth and constant mode share. By 2005, ridership is forecast to 

increase to approximately 5,500 riders per day (2 million riders annually) and to 15,800 

daily riders (5.77 million riders annually) by 2020. 

Regional and urban traffic is steadily increasing. This affects intercity travel by delaying 

travelers at specific highway chokepoints, therefore increasing congestion along the 

entire corridor. The proposed rail corridor improvements would help to accommodate a 

portion of this projected growth in travel demand. 

Additional Potential Benefits to Communities located along LOSSAN Corridor: 

A number of potential benefits may accrue to communities located along the LOSSAN 

corridor from the improved rail services that would result from the proposed rail 

improvements, including: 

Economic

• Especially in beach communities, rail brings visitors and tourists directly 

into the downtown business districts and their hotels, restaurants, and 

other businesses. 

• The possibility of additional visitors to the community could mean 

increased sales/hotel occupancy tax revenues to the cities. 

Planning Issues

• Rail accommodates travelers without cars, reducing the need for 

additional parking lots and increases in the street width of local arterials. 

• New/improved grade separations provide for better circulation on local 

streets that cross the rail lines, which reduces delays. 

Quality of Life

• Reduced noise associated with train whistles as new grade separations 

eliminate the need to sound the horn at level crossings. 

• Increased safety associated with grade separations, pedestrian 

crossings, and new beach access opportunities 

• Increased mobility options 

• Can reduce congestion within communities 

• New revenues, such as from additional sales taxes generated, can help 

pay for additional community amenities (libraries, community centers, 

etc.) 

 

4

 California Department of Transportation, Draft Pacific Surfliner Route FY 2001-2002 Business Plan, January 10, 2001 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 24 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Capacity of the Intercity Transportation System 

The growing population and economic activity in Southern California has placed severe 

demands on the already congested transportation system serving the area. Many of the 

highways and airports are currently operating at capacity and current plans for 

expansion will not keep up with projected growth over the next 20 years. Figure 5.3, on 

the following page, shows the existing and future train volumes along the Los Angeles to 

San Diego rail corridor. 

The three rail services along the LOSSAN corridor are constrained by a corridor that is 

significantly undersized for the volumes of traffic it accommodates. Currently, 41 

percent of the 125-mile rail corridor consists of a single track. The extensive sections of 

single-track greatly constrain the movements of trains through the corridor. By necessity, 

only a single train at a time can be present along any one stretch of single-track, causing 

other trains to stack at either end of the single-track section, resulting in delays, and 

reducing the attractiveness of rail as a travel mode choice. 

The proposed improvements to the existing LOSSAN corridor would allow for a more 

reliable, safe, and competitive intercity travel option. This more balanced transportation 

system would relieve some of the projected near and long-term demand on the existing 

transportation infrastructure, potentially slowing the need to further expand highways 

and airports, or reduce the scale of those expansions, reducing their associated cost, 

community impacts and environmental impacts. The LOSSAN corridor rail improvements 

would augment the highway system, creating an interconnected, multimodal solution, 

allowing for better mobility throughout Southern California. 

The LOSSAN corridor Strategic Plan assists in meeting these needs by laying out short 

and long-range visions and plans for the improvement of the rail corridor over time. It 

provides a comparative view of potential projects along the corridor, gives information on 

relative costs, and shows how the projects will benefit train service and performance and 

address community and environmental issues. 

Travel Time 

Among the most important factors that impact the public’s choice of transportation 

modes are travel time and reliability. Travel time is the time spent on the road, in the air, 

or on a train from a place of origin to a place of destination. Travel time is an important 

economic factor for business travel, as delays can affect worker productivity and planned 

business activities. Table 5.2 shows the approximate point-to-point travel time in 2000, 

which includes congestion effects, and the projected total travel time in 2020 for autos, 

compared with the existing and projected station to station travel time for Amtrak’s 

Pacific Surfliner, based on information collected from Amtrak and the Regional 

Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 25 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Table 5.2 – Present and Future Travel Times between Los Angeles and San Diego 

Route Auto 2000 Auto 2020 Rail 2000 Proposed 

LOSSAN Goal 

Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown 

San Diego 2:35 3:15 2:44 < 2:00 

Source: CHSRA 

Table 5.2 notes that point-to-point travel times by rail and auto are comparable today, 

and that rail will be faster in the future, both as a result of the proposed improvements to 

the LOSSAN corridor, as well as because auto travel is projected to slow with increasing 

demand and the congestion created by that additional traffic volume. 

Total travel time for rail, not shown in Table 5.2, includes time required to reach a 

station, time spent waiting for the next scheduled train, time spent getting to the boarding 

area, time spent checking or retrieving luggage, time spent getting a rental car or taxi, 

and time spent to reach the final destination. If rail is to be a viable alternative to the 

automobile, it must provide point-to-point times significantly better than the automobile, 

since rail cannot provide door-to-door service, as automobiles do. The lack of door-todoor service is partially offset by the advantage that rail destinations are usually located 

in the heart of a community, and close cooperation with local transit agencies can 

improve connecting travel to the final destination. 

Intercity rail trip delays are mainly related to shared-track conflicts with commuter and 

freight trains. The proposed LOSSAN corridor improvements will reduce travel time over 

the next twenty years by increasing operating speeds and efficiency, while 

simultaneously enhancing grade crossing safety, and lessening environmental 

degradation. These improvements would benefit all rail services, including freight, 

intercity and commuter trains, passengers, automobile drivers, and the communities in 

which the improvements are located. The proposed rail improvements would help 

ensure the efficient transport of goods and freight, a critical component of the state’s 

economic health. Consequently, the proposed improvements, and the strong 

cooperation between freight, commuter and intercity rail operators will provide for 

continued growth and efficient movement of people and goods within the LOSSAN 

corridor with statewide and even national benefits. 

Without the proposed improvements, the corridor will not be able to meet the capacity 

demands required to allow for meaningful reductions in travel time r, rail passenger 

service competitiveness will not increase and reliance on highway travel will increase. 

Reliability 

Beyond travel time, travelers are also sensitive to reliability; i.e. the degree to which they 

can be certain to arrive at a given time. As discussed above, roadway congestion, and a 

growing intercity travel market, is adversely impacting the reliability of intercity 

automobile travel. Based on current performance and forecasted congestion levels, the 

reliability of highway travel will be severely impacted in future years. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, there were approximately 811 million 

annual hours delayed in traffic by those who commuted by automobile in the Los 

Angeles and San Diego areas in 1999. This is the highest delay experienced by any 

urban area in the nation. There are many causes of increased highway congestion 

throughout Southern California. For example, accidents, stranded roadside cars, or a 

routine traffic violation stop can create a “rubberneck” effect as drivers slow at the scene 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 26 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

of the incident, delaying travelers for miles. In addition to typical congestion inducers, 

poor weather conditions (rain, wind, and fog) also negatively affect the reliability of 

highway travel times. Rain and wind can make roads dangerously slick, increasing the 

likelihood of accidents. Often times, fog, haze and glare impairs visibility and requires 

drivers to slow down. 

The need to share space with freight and passenger trains, coupled with extensive 

sections of single-track on the rail corridor, often lead to delays along the rail corridor, 

since the delay of a single train often has the consequence of affecting other trains 

operating within the corridor. Double track, as an example, eliminates the delays 

currently associated with trains waiting at a passing track for others to clear a single 

tracked-section. Elimination of this type of delay alone would provide for more 

consistent operating schedule for trains, significantly increasing on-time performance 

and reliability. Proposed grade separations would also reduce the impacts of inclement 

weather, such as the coastal fog and haze from smog experienced during much of the 

year along portions of the rail corridor. These grade-separations would increase not only 

the reliability and operating performance of trains, but also provide for increased traffic 

flow on local streets that are presently subject to delays when trains are crossing. 

On-time performance is also an important factor in attracting travelers. From 1999 to 

2001, Amtrak’s on-time performance within the LOSSAN corridor improved 6.6-percent, 

from 71.6-percent to 78.2-percent. This performance increase shows that Amtrak is 

making gains toward reaching its ultimate goal of a 90-percent on-time performance 

standard. The proposed rail improvements will improve the on-time performance and 

reliability of the passenger rail service by facilitating passenger and freight movements, 

accelerating Amtrak’s ability to reach this goal. 

Safety 

Safety is an overarching consideration in providing transportation. A key rail safety 

consideration focuses on reducing or eliminating interactions between people, 

automobiles and trains. These interactions occur most frequently at grade crossings, 

and where pedestrians trespass across rail lines to get to their destination. 

Projected growth in the movement of people and goods by auto and rail over the next 

two decades underscores the need for improved safety. With more and more vehicles on 

the roadways and more frequent and faster trains, the potential for rail/automobile 

collisions increase. 

Rail passengers must have confidence that the service provided them is not only reliable 

and fast, but is also as safe or safer than other modes. Nationally, passenger rail travel 

is one of the safest modes of transportation. Railroad safety in the United States has 

steadily improved over the past several decades, despite increases in both highway and 

rail traffic. A 1999 summary of state highway accident data compiled by the Department 

of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles tallied 3,539 fatalities and 279,801 non-fatal 

injuries on California highways. This corresponds to an estimated injury rate of 1 death 

per 138 million vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT) (83 million vehicle miles of travel 

[VMT]) per year. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 27 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

During the same year (1999), statewide there were 110 railroad fatalities (involving both 

freight and passenger trains), of which 86 of these were trespassers within the rail rightof-way5

. Amtrak, since its formation in 1971, has had only 100 fatalities nationwide, 

while moving more than 600 million passengers. To help ensure that future increases in 

rail traffic occur without a corresponding increase in accident or injury, the State of 

California has embarked on an extensive rail safety information and education program. 

The proposed LOSSAN corridor improvements will address this need by reducing or 

eliminating the hazards at highway-rail crossings in designated higher speed rail 

corridors, as well as provide new or upgraded pedestrian crossings along the corridor. 

These improvements would be eligible for federal funding specifically intended to 

improve highway-rail crossings (established by Congress as part of the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 

In addition, the FRA has also developed its own guideline to address safety concerns at 

grade crossings. This guideline states that “public and private crossings where train 

speeds are between 90 and 110 miles per hour (mph) should be equipped with special 

crossing protection devices, grade separated, or closed”. 

Even though overall accident rates are relatively low for railroads, the LOSSAN corridor 

traverses several highly traveled roadways and pedestrian areas at-grade, which when 

coupled with higher levels of rail traffic could lead to higher accident rates, if grade 

crossings are not eliminated and access issues addressed. 

The safety improvements included in the proposed rail corridor improvements above will 

help in maintaining high overall rail passenger safety within the LOSSAN corridor when 

compared to other modes of transportation. 

Modal Connections 

Good connections currently exist between intercity travel modes and the extensive 

regional urban and commuter transportation system in the region, as many rail stations 

also serve as local transit hubs. Connections continue to improve as new transit services 

are developed, and existing commuter and intercity become more integrated in terms of 

both service and fare/transfer agreements. An improved LOSSAN Corridor could also 

complement and allow for better connections to transit systems, providing a substantially 

greater degree of mobility for those who travel in Southern California. Improvements in 

modal connections are essential to the success of intercity rail. Since rail travel is not a 

door-to-door service, allowing for easy connections between home and station locations 

is a substantial enabling component to these improvements. At each station location, 

connections with local and regional transit systems, such as the Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Metro Rail, Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 

North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NCTD) and the Coaster commuter 

service, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and the San Diego 

Trolley will be improved or provided to the greatest extent possible. Station 

improvements will also maximize access to and from the region’s extensive highway 

system. 

 

5 California Public Utilities Commission 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 28 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Figure 5.3

1999 State Area Designation - Ozone

Significant benefits could be provided to the traveling public and the economy by the 

development of a true multimodal transportation system, due to the various advantages 

and disadvantages offered by the different modes of transportation. 

Air Quality & Environmental Resources 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) makes “transportation conformity” the affirmative 

responsibility of the U.S. Department of Transportation and regional Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs). In California, transportation conformity addresses air 

quality attainment and maintenance strategies contained in the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), used to evaluate transportation alternatives, including the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Figure 5.3, at right, shows the urbanized 

counties in California designated as “Ozone 

Non-Attainment Areas”. All of Southern 

California is so designated. Maintaining and 

improving air quality is one goal of the State 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 

and Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs). 

The challenges for metropolitan areas are to 

continue to reduce vehicle emissions to 

acceptable levels and maintain air quality 

standards by encouraging more efficient use of 

land resources, improving mobility, and 

providing alternative transportation facilities 

and services. Approaches aimed at reducing 

the demand for trips in single-occupant 

vehicles must be integral to all transportation 

plans and programs to ensure that these areas 

conform to federal air quality standards. 

Developing multipurpose corridors that 

combine designated lanes for high-occupancy 

vehicles, transit, and rail alternatives is a 

statewide transportation strategy for meeting air 

quality objectives. The proposed LOSSAN rail 

improvements would help implement this 

strategy. 

The objectives of meeting federal and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40 

years will also require reductions in the number of vehicle kilometers (miles) traveled, 

integrated land use and transportation planning and development, transportation 

demand strategies, operational improvements and use of new technologies that improve 

transportation efficiencies and provide a transportation alternative to the single-occupant 

automobile. 

Moving passengers by rail produces significantly less pollution per passenger mile 

traveled as compared to typical automobile use, and would aid in reducing emissions 

throughout the corridor. The extent to which the objective of improving air quality can be 

met by an increased use of the intercity rail system will be explored in the Program 

EIR/EIS. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 29 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The protection of important coastal environmental resources, such as the lagoons and 

coastal bluffs, will also be a consideration of any improvements to the segments of the 

LOSSAN corridor as it traverses the coastline. The improvements considered in the 

Program EIR/EIS would dovetail with other efforts to restore sensitive environmental 

habitat, as well as provide new funding opportunities to mitigate and reduce the impacts 

of rail service. Where practicable, improvements to the conditions of sensitive 

environmental habitat will be made, such as increasing the opportunity for tidal flows in 

the lagoons as part of improvements to lagoon crossings. Identification of additional 

improvements to habitat conditions will also be explored in the Program EIR/EIS. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 30 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.0 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES IN KEY LOCATIONS 

Screening is the process by which the Department and the FRA determine which 

alternatives and design options should be carried forward in the Environmental review 

process. The screening process involves reviewing the range of options which have 

been identified at key locations. In these areas, the number of design options is 

sufficiently broad to allow removing from further consideration those options which, due 

to significant technical, environmental, and/or economic factors, are not practicable and 

would not serve to reasonably and feasibly meet the objectives, purpose and need for 

the proposed system. Those options remaining represent a range of the most 

reasonable and feasible means of responding to the project’s objectives, purpose, and 

need. These are the alternatives which will receive detailed consideration in the 

program EIR/EIS. 

This section of the Strategic Plan identifies the areas where screening recommendations 

can be made, and the significant reasons for recommending the removal ofcertain 

options from further consideration. In most areas of the corridors, there are at least two 

viable design options for the entire corridor (plus the No-Build option, which would retain 

the existing conditions). All of the screening recommendations have been developed 

with extensive input and cooperation from both FRA and the Authority, the Department’s 

partners in the Program-level EIR/EIS process. In addition, these recommendations 

have been developed with input from the transportation agency review committees 

established by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Orange 

County Transportation Authority (OCTA), from state and federal-level resource agencies, 

and from the public. 

There are five cities in four locations within the LOSSAN corridor where the range of 

design options under consideration is sufficiently broad to allow for the screening of 

options. Those options screened out will be documented in the Program EIR/EIS 

process as “Alternatives considered and eliminated from further study”. This screening 

will save time, effort, and resources that would be otherwise required to study 

alternatives that are later determined to be infeasible and inferior to other alternatives. 

The locations where such screening opportunities exist are shown in Figure 6-1. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 31 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-1 – Locations for Screening 

• In San Diego County – Del Mar, and Encinitas 

• In South Orange County – San Clemente/Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 32 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Most notably, there is enough technical data and public input (as a result of both 

previous public meetings and the public workshops held as part of the Strategic Plan 

process) to warrant eliminating the design options along the Del Mar Bluffs, on the 

beach at San Clemente, through the historic district at San Juan Capistrano, and the 

need to study an Inland Bypass Alternative. Each of these alternatives would result in 

significant environmental impacts and is burdened by severe public or agency 

opposition. 

With the exception of the Inland Bypass Alternative, all the design options in this corridor 

being investigated by the Department were considered at a consistent level of analysis 

and were evaluated using standardized engineering, environmental, and financial criteria 

for the application of uniform methodologies. Data from the technical studies that have 

contributed to this report are included as Appendix “A”. The Inland Bypass Alternative 

was the subject of a preliminary investigation, which is summarized in Appendix “B”. This 

technical data, combined with public and agency input, has provided the Department 

and the FRA with the necessary information to eliminate this alternative from further 

study within the program EIR/EIS. Screening criteria used by the Department centered 

on the key issues of: 

• Constructability 

• Train Service and Performance 

• Community 

• Environment 

The screening criteria focus on the elements that differentiate design options at Del Mar, 

Encinitas, San Clemente/Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and the Inland Bypass 

Alternative. In Del Mar for example, the key natural resources that differentiate the 

design options are potential impacts to coastal bluffs and lagoons. Appendix “C” further 

defines the screening criteria used to evaluate the design options. Summary sheets are 

also provided in Appendix “C” with rankings for either positive benefits or negative 

impacts for all of the criteria used to evaluate each design option included in this report. 

6.1 Preliminary Options Not Carried Forward 

The community and environmental sensitivities and engineering challenges in the Cities 

of Del Mar, Encinitas, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano are distinctive and 

sometimes unique to one community. Nevertheless, the four share one common 

constraint: an environment of high pedestrian traffic, where the railway acts as an 

impediment to access between the majority of the community and a desirable 

community resource, and yet the railway is accessible enough that people are not 

channelled to designated crossing points featuring gates and warning devices. 

In these areas, simple at-grade double-tracking was considered early in the definition of 

alternatives. However, introducing extensive sections of double-track in such 

environments, without providing a significant expansion of the ability for pedestrians to 

safely cross over or under the tracks, greatly increases safety risks. Crossing two tracks, 

where trains could come in either direction on either track, and where the presence of a 

train on one track could screen the view of another train on the second track, is 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 33 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

significantly more dangerous than crossing a single track. Beyond the safety issues, the 

implication is also that speeds through the segment most likely could not be increased, 

negating much of the benefit of double-tracking. 

While the concept of simple at-grade double-tracking was rejected, it was used as a 

starting point in defining alternatives along the existing alignment in the four 

communities. This process is described below. 

Del Mar: An at-grade alternative along the coastal bluffs in Del Mar would face the 

factors noted above. In addition, since the bluffs are undergoing continuous erosion, it 

was apparent that any double-tracking alternative in this location would require 

significant excavation work to stabilize the bluff-top. This excavation would, in effect, 

create a partial trench, so the at-grade concept was modified to improve pedestrian 

access and reduce barrier restrictions by featuring a cut-and-cover trench in the bluff, 

which would provide for pedestrian movements over the covered portions. 

Encinitas: In Encinitas, the at-grade alternative was expanded to feature two key 

vehicular and pedestrian grade-separations at Leucadia Boulevard and Birmingham, as 

well as several pedestrian-only underpasses. While final locations of the underpasses 

would be determined in future project-specific work, they would be located in Leucadia, 

where the rail separates a residential area to the east with the local shopping district and 

the coast to the west, and in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, where the rail separates the community 

from the ocean. 

San Clemente: The track at San Clemente is on the beach. As a result, trespassing 

onto the rail right-of-way and crossing the rails away from designated crossing points is 

commonplace, with clear safety implications. To address these safety issues, train 

operating speeds are greatly reduced, leading to significant capacity and performance 

penalties in these areas. An at-grade alternative along the beach segment was modified 

to provide for easier pedestrian access through a cut-and-cover trench in the Pier Bowl 

area, the area of highest pedestrian activity. New pedestrian underpasses would also be 

provided to the south. A second alternative contemplated a cut-and-cover trench along 

the entire beachfront segment. 

San Juan Capistrano: Up until the 1960’s, downtown San Juan Capistrano featured a 

second passing track. This was removed by the Santa Fe Railroad, which saw it as an 

unnecessary maintenance burden in a time when intercity passenger travel was on the 

decline and commuter rail was decades away. While room is available to restore the 

second track at-grade, doing so would not provide any speed improvements in the 

highly-pedestrianized Franciscan Plaza area, as discussed above. Further, the presence 

of the Los Rios Historical District immediately to the west, with its sensitive adobe 

structures, eliminates the possibility of a grade-separation along the existing alignment, 

either by taking the rail below-grade, or by building a pedestrian underpass. The atgrade concept was therefore modified to feature a grade-separation under the 

Franciscan Plaza, to the east of the existing station to provide a greater buffer to the Los 

Rios District. 

Due to physical constraints, visual and environmental issues, and community concerns, 

elevated railway viaduct structures (except at water crossings) along the beachfront and 

in the San Juan Capistrano historical area were also not investigated. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 34 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.2 DEL MAR 

A number of options exist in the Del Mar area, including the “No-Build” (maintaining the existing 

conditions) option, a trench option, and three tunnel options, as shown below: 

• No-Build 

• Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 

• Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass Tunnel 

• Trench-in-Bluffs 

• Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2 

The following subsections provide descriptions of the each of the options in Del Mar (except for 

the No-Build option), and the recommendation of whether the option be carried forward for 

further evaluation or screened. (It is important to note that the “No-Build” option represents the 

existing conditions and will always be carried forward for further consideration). 

Alignment and Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 6-2): 

Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1: The Camino del Mar Tunnel would provide an alternative to 

retaining the rail line on Del Mar’s sensitive bluffs by relocating the tracks into a tunnel which 

would run under Camino Del Mar. 

The Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 option would improve train performance and would 

reduce environmental impacts from the existing conditions – providing considerable 

benefits to the environment and community. 

Relative to the no-build condition, the Camino Del Mar option #1’s double track layout 

would increase track capacity, and its fully grade-separated profile and smoother curves 

would provide for reduced running times. Safety and reliability would also improve, as 

would the operations and maintenance of rail services. There would be construction 

issues associated with the tunnel, and the cost associated with the tunnel alternative 

would be significant. However, the cost-effectiveness of this option is assessed as 

good, because the tunnel costs are about the same as those of the Trench-in-Bluffs 

option, and the improvements to train performance are considerably greater. 

The Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 option would have community benefits and reduce 

environmental impacts, as the rail line would be removed from the Del Mar Bluffs. The 

Tunnel option also includes an opportunity for reduced lagoon impacts, as the rail line 

could be placed on an concrete structure through Penasquitos and San Dieguito 

Lagoons, allowing for the removal of fill and increased tidal flow. Coastal access and 

barrier issues would be greatly reduced as a result of this Tunnel option. Although 

careful design and construction is required to avoid disruption to commercial and 

residential properties on either side of Camino Del Mar, this Tunnel alternative would not 

likely require tunneling directly under any structures. Further, properties located 

adjacent to the existing rail line would see a benefit from the Tunnel option, as the rail 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 35 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

was removed from the bluffs and noise and vibration would be generally greatly reduced 

as a result of the tunnel. 

The Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 option has received a considerable amount of support 

from the community and State and Federal resource agencies that would like to see the 

existing track removed from the bluffs. 

Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass Tunnel: This option would relocate the rail line on Del Mar’s 

sensitive bluffs into a tunnel which would run under I-5. The tunnel would begin 

approximately midway along the existing alignment through Penasquitos Lagoon, where the 

line would shift eastwards into the I-5 right-of-way. It would follow I-5 in a tunnel 

configuration under the centerline to north of Del Mar Heights Road. As it approaches the 

San Dieguito Lagoon, this option would turn northwestward and emerge from the tunnel, 

skirting the southern edge of the San Dieguito Lagoon and the Del Mar Fairgrounds in a 

combination of at-grade and elevated profiles, until rejoining the existing LOSSAN alignment 

at the crossing of the San Dieguito River. 

The Penasquitos Lagoon Bypass Tunnel would have the same positive benefits to the 

Del Mar bluffs and community as the Camino Del Mar Tunnel. However, this option 

would be considerably more expensive to construct than the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 

(estimated $250 million more) because the topography of this alignment requires a 

tunnel about twice as long as the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 option. 

The primary additional benefit of this option is that it would further reduce lagoon impacts 

by creating an alignment that avoids much of Penasquitos Lagoon. It would also have 

the least noise and vibration impacts. However, this option would have more property 

impacts and constructability issues than the Camino Del Mar #1 Tunnel alternative. 

State and federal resource agencies have indicated that they believe this option should 

be investigated as part of the program EIR/EIS process. It is likely to have considerable 

community support since, like the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 option, it would result in 

the removal of the existing track along the bluffs. 

A more northerly return to the existing LOSSAN corridor was examined, one which could 

further reduce potential impacts to San Dieguito Lagoon. There are challenges associated 

with taking this option further north, past the San Dieguito River. These challenges include: 

• Extremely tight rail curves would be required to transition back to the existing 

corridor. The reductions on train performance to negotiate these curves would 

effectively negate the benefits of double tracking in this area. 

• The land in this area sits on a floodplain, eliminating possibility of continuing the 

option in a tunnel, and requiring the track to be at-grade or on an elevated structure. 

• Crossing the Del Mar Fairgrounds, owned and operated by the 22nd District 

Agricultural Association, would have serious repercussions on their operations. 

• Similar to possible impacts to residential areas in the south of Del Mar (as discussed 

with the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2 option below), there would be substantial 

impacts to residential areas in southern Solana Beach as a result of a more Northern 

alignment. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 36 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-2 – Options to Be Retained for Further Study in Del Mar 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 37 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated from Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 6-3): 

Trench-in-Bluffs: The Trench-in-Bluffs (Trench) option would follow the existing rail 

alignment, but would provide two mainline tracks in a concrete trench (partially covered) 

along the Del Mar Bluffs. In order to do so, significant bluff stabilization efforts would be 

required, including tie-backs at the top of the Bluffs, a seawall at the base of the bluffs, and 

retaining walls within the trench itself. 

The “Trench-in-Bluffs” alignment alternative would have severe construction impacts and 

would introduce major environmental impacts due to the required bluff stabilization. 

The Trench option offers very significant constructability challenges, most notably 

because of the nature of bluffs themselves (see Figure 6-4). Attempting to stabilize the 

fragile coastal bluffs would require major construction efforts, including a 10-20 foot high 

seawall at the base of the bluffs, retaining walls within the trench itself, and tie-backs at 

the top of the bluffs, resulting in drastic changes to the existing environment. The use of 

heavy construction equipment in this sensitive environment would also be problematic. 

Moreover, the constrained space available for construction of the trench and the need to 

maintain rail service during construction would create significant impacts. 

The Trench option would have the highest environmental impacts. In areas where the 

trench would be covered, community impacts and barrier issues would be reduced, 

however, in other areas where the trench was either open or the alignment was atgrade, these impacts would be exacerbated because of the double-track width of the 

trench. The Trench option would not remove the rail line from the bluffs, but rather 

would submerge it into the bluffs, creating new, different impacts (including the need for 

the stabilization methods noted above). The stabilization of the bluffs would result in the 

highest impacts on natural resources, and the bluffs have major geological and soils 

constraints. Construction on the bluffs would have high impacts to erodible soils, 

unstable slopes, and aesthetics and visual quality. Property impacts with the Trench 

option would include the likely need to acquire property during the construction period in 

order to stage equipment and materials. 

Public and agency input has been nearly unanimous in favor of removing the track from 

the fragile bluffs. The concept of major stabilization and trench-and-cover construction 

along this highly environmentally sensitive area would be strongly opposed by both the 

community and the state and federal resource agencies. 

Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2: The Camino Del Mar Tunnel would relocate the rail line on 

Del Mar’s sensitive bluffs into a tunnel which would run under Camino Del Mar. The Camino 

Del Mar Tunnel #2 Option is a variation of the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 Option, where 

curve straightening included in this option would take the tunnel beneath a residential area 

at the southern end of Del Mar and the northern edge of San Diego. 

This design option would be more costly and create more community and potential 

environmental impacts than the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 while providing only minimal 

travel time benefits due to the curve straightening. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 38 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

As a result of the curve straightening at the south end of Del Mar, there would be some 

significant property impacts (acquisitions and easements) in the tunnel transition areas, 

and where the tunnel passed beneath residential property. In addition, the curve 

straightening would cross Penasquitos Lagoon at a new location, causing additional 

impacts and disruption to this environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, it is 

estimated that this option only improves running times by about 20 seconds as 

compared to the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 alternative. 

Community acceptability for the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #2 option is generally negative, 

with the community greatly preferring the Camino Del Mar Tunnel #1 alternative which 

stays under the public right-of-way of Camino Del Mar. 

Figure 6-3 – Options to Be Screened from Further Consideration in Del Mar 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 39 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-4 – Train passing along Del Mar Bluffs 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 40 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.3 ENCINITAS 

A number of design options exist in Encinitas, including the “No-Build” (maintaining the existing 

conditions) option, an upgraded version of the existing at-grade alignment, and two trench 

options, as shown below: 

• No-Build 

• At-Grade with Grade Separations (Note: All the build options in Encinitas include the 

Grade Separations) 

• Short Trench 

• Long Trench 

The following subsections provide descriptions of the each of the options in Encinitas (except for 

the No-Build option), and the recommendation of whether the option be carried forward for 

further evaluation or eliminated. (It is important to note that the “No-Build” option represents the 

existing conditions and will always be carried forward for further consideration) 

Alignment and Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 6-5): 

At-Grade with Grade Separations: This option would provide double-tracking throughout 

Encinitas with new grade separations at Leucadia Blvd. at Pacific Coast Highway/Vulcan 

Dr., and Birmingham Drive at San Elijo. Additionally, new pedestrian crossings would be 

provided. 

Train capacity would greatly improve as a result of the double-tracking provided as part 

of the “At-Grade with Grade Separations” option. Safety would be significantly 

improved, as the opportunities for interaction between pedestrians and trains would be 

diminished with the grade separations at Leucadia Blvd. and Birmingham and pedestrian 

crossings. The risk of accidents with cars would also be diminished with the two major 

grade separation projects and reliability and traffic circulation would also improve with 

this option. 

This option would not provide the full grade separation benefits of the Short Trench 

concept, leaving the crossings of D and E streets at-grade. However, this option would 

be considerably less expensive (estimated at $150 million less) than the Short Trench 

concept. 

Although this concept does not have as much as support from the community as the 

Short Trench option, the grade-separations at Leucadia Blvd. and Birmingham Drive are 

supported and would provide significant benefits to the community. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 41 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Short Trench: This option would locate a double-tracked cut and cover tunnel in the 

downtown area (approximately 1.5 miles), and grade separations at Leucadia Blvd. at 

Pacific Coast Highway/Vulcan Dr., and Birmingham Drive at San Elijo. Additionally, new 

pedestrian crossings would be provided in the Leucadia and Cardiff communities. 

The Short Trench option would improve train performance and would reduce 

environmental impacts from the existing conditions – providing considerable benefits to 

the environment and community. 

Train capacity would greatly improve as a result of the double-tracking provided with the 

Short Trench option. Safety would be significantly improved, as the opportunities for 

interaction between pedestrians and trains would be diminished, and the grade 

separations at Leucadia Blvd. and Birmingham, as well as D & E Streets downtown, 

would eliminate the risk of accidents with cars at these crossings. Reliability would also 

improve with this alternative. An additional benefit of this alternative is that it could be 

constructed in phases, where the grade separations at Leucadia Blvd. and Birmingham 

Drive and new pedestrian crossings could be made prior to securing the funding for the 

actual trench and cover construction through downtown Encinitas. 

Environmental impacts from existing rail services would be reduced with the 

implementation of the Short Trench option. The Short Trench option would improve 

community cohesion and coastal access opportunities would also increase. Noise and 

vibration would be reduced as a result of the Short Trench and traffic circulation would 

improve as a result of the two grade separations included in this option. 

Public acceptability for the Short Trench Option has been very positive. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 42 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-5 – Options to be Retained for Further Study in Encinitas
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 43 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated from Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment option is recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 6-6): 

Long Trench: This option would consists of a double-tracked open trench that would 

extend the length of the City. The trench would be covered through the downtown area, and 

new pedestrian crossings would be provided at other locations. The Long Trench option 

would be considerably longer than the Short Trench in that the trench would run through the 

extent of Encinitas (approximately 7-miles), rather than just the downtown area. 

The majority of the train performance and community benefits associated with the Long 

Trench would also be provided with the Short Trench option. However, the Long Trench 

option would have much higher costs and considerably more construction 

impacts/issues associated with the construction of a 7-mile long trench. The Long 

Trench is expected to cost at least $250 million more than the Short Trench option. 

Moreover, the at-grade crossings at Leucadia Blvd and Birmingham Drive would remain 

until the Long Trench was fully-funded and constructed. 

The Long Trench’s cost-effectiveness is rated negatively because of the significant 

construction issues and much higher cost associated with the construction of the Long 

Trench – with only minimal additional community and environmental benefits over the 

Short Trench option. Although there has been considerable public support for this 

concept in the past, its high cost and constructability issues makes this option 

considerably less feasible than, and certainly inferior to the Short Trench option. 

Figure 6-6 – Option to Be Eliminated from Further Consideration in Encinitas 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 44 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.4 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY INLAND BYPASS ALTERNATIVE 

During the Scoping process held in Spring 2002, continuing concerns about 

improvement alternatives within the existing alignment in the South Orange County 

Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point and San Clemente led to strong requests by 

the public to study an alternative that would bypass the highly senstitive segments of 

these communities. In Summer 2002, the Orange County Transportation Authority and 

the South Orange County Rail Working Group asked the Department to study an Inland 

Bypass Alternative that would locate any future rail improvement projects along an 

inland route, one which would bypass the South Orange County cities of San Juan 

Capistrano, Dana Point, and San Clemente. 

Earlier in its own process (2001), the California High-Speed Rail Authority had studied 

the possibility of locating a fully-grade separated, electrified high-speed rail line in the 

same vicinity, but due to significant community, environmental, cost and train 

performance issues, opted to eliminate this corridor from further consideration. 

The Authority has shared the results of its findings with the Department, as a means of 

helping the Department to determine whether further study of an Inland Bypass 

Alternative is desirable and would provide additional alignment options for further 

consideration in the Program-level EIR/EIS process. 

There are a number of issues related to an Inland Bypass Alternative, including: 

• The topography of the Inland Bypass Alternative study area, and its implications 

for train performance and route constructability 

• Environmental concerns 

• Transitions to and from the existing LOSSAN corridor 

• Impacts to existing adjacent land uses 

• Costs of the new corridor 

• Train Service and Performance Benefits/Impacts 

• Implications for the existing LOSSAN corridor 

These issues are illustrated in Exhibit 6.1, and the following subsections address each of 

them in greater detail. Further detail is also provided in Appendix B. 

6.4.1 Topography 

The existing LOSSAN Corridor lies where it is due to favorable topography. Trains 

perform best where the grades (steepness) of the land over which they travel are not 

great. While the performance capabilities of trains have increased since the rails were 

placed, certain characteristics continue to limit the potential grade over which trains can 

efficiently travel. 

For passenger trains, a maximum grade of between 1 and 2 percent is standard (with a 

1 .2 percent grade the ideal maximum). While conventional diesel-powered trains can 

negotiate steeper grades of 2-3 percent over a short distance, they will slow significantly. 

Adding curves to the mix slows trains even further. Freight trains offer even more 

challenge and are unable to efficiently negotiate grades above 1.5 percent. 

The shared-use nature of the LOSSAN corridor requires that grades accommodate 

freight trains. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 45 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Traveling inland from the coast in Southern Orange County, the topography becomes 

very problematic from a rail design standpoint. The hills and canyons would require 

significant tunneling in order to provide for the relocation of the LOSSAN corridor. 

Based on the rough, varied topography of the Inland Bypass Alternative study area, it 

becomes clear that there would be significant need for tunnels or built structures in order 

to maintain the necessary and desirable grades and to limit the number of tight curves in 

the new corridor as the train passes through the many canyons and over the water 

courses in the study area. 

Figure 6-7 – Grades within the Inland Bypass Alternative Study Area and Tunneling Required 

Figure 6-7 shows the steepness of the Inland Bypass Alternative Study area as 

measured from the I-5 moving away from the coast at Basilone Road in southernmost 

Orange County north toward the current termination of SR-241 (the Foothill South Toll 

Road) at Antonio Parkway, along the Far East Alignment, a possible rail alignment route 

whose topography is well known. The figure also denotes the relative ability of 

passenger and freight trains to negotiate the rise and fall along the toll road’s right-ofway. Since this exhibit was prepared for the Authority in 2001, the TCA has revised the 

profile of this alignment, eliminating grades greater than 4%. The TCA has also noted 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 46 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

the possibility of smoothing the grades further through more extensive earthwork. 

Nevertheless, the topographic challenges continue to be significant, and it is likely that 

several sustained grades of 2% or more would remain. 

A preliminary estimate, based on the graph shown in Figure 6-7, indicates up to 20 miles 

of tunnel along an Inland alignment, much of it continuous. Tunnels greater than 6 miles 

in length offer significantly greater complexity including the need for extensive ventilation 

shafts and the difficulties of operating non-electric, diesel-powered equipment in such a 

long tunnel. Tunnels of over 10 miles raise fundamental questions of constructability 

given California’s seismic and soil conditions. Additional miles of tunneling would also 

likely be required north of this point, before rejoining the LOSSAN corridor. 

The study area also includes sections wherein the soil types are subject to liquefaction 

or earthquake-induced slides, complicating design and construction. 

6.4.2 Environmental Concerns 

The Inland Bypass Alternative study area includes the last large remaining parcels of 

undeveloped land in Orange County outside the land preserved as part of the Cleveland 

National Forest, largely comprised of the 25,000-acre Rancho Mission Viejo. Several 

concerns have been raised about development of any kind in this area, including the 

completion of the SR-241 Foothill-South Toll Road. 

Environmental Concerns include: 

• Impacts to Wetland and Water Resources - Water and wetlands resources within 

the Inland Bypass Alternative study area are extensive, with 24 known wetland 

and riparian areas (a listing of these areas is included in Appendix B). Between 

Irvine and the San Diego county line, the Inland Bypass rail corridor would 

involve crossing three rivers and 12 creeks. 

• A floodplain impact - The study area includes numerous 100-year floodplain 

zones, and is associated with unnamed drainages, tributaries and small creeks. 

In South Orange County these floodplains vary in size from 100 to 5,000 feet 

wide. 

• Possible impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species & Habitat, Wildlife 

Refuges - Twenty-one threatened and endangered species are known to exist 

within the study area, ranging from “Species of Special Concern” to those 

federally listed as “Threatened”. 

• Farmland impacts - From the current terminus of SR-241 at Oso Parkway south 

to SR-74 (Ortega Highway), there are scattered parcels of farmland identified by 

the California Department of Conservation as either “Prime and Unique” or 

“Farmland of Statewide Significance”. 

• Parks and Recreational Resources – In addition to the aforementioned Riley 

Wilderness Park and Rancho Mission Viejo Ecological Reserve, the study area 

includes O’Neill Regional Park and San Onofre State Beach. 

Federal and State resource agencies, including the Federal Environmental Protection 

Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

California Department of Fish and Game, and California State Parks Service, have 

previously expressed concerns over the introduction of a new rail corridor in South 

Orange County, citing reasons and factors such as those highlighted above. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 47 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided a letter expressing its opposition to an 

inland route in Orange County (the complete text of which is part of Appendix D). The 

Service’s is concerned about potential impacts of a new rail alignment on sensitive and 

listed species, as well as the potential for loss and fragmentation of habitat. 

6.4.3 Transitions to/from the existing LOSSAN corridor 

A significant consideration in the creation of a new Inland Bypass Alternative alignment 

is how the new corridor would divert from the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. It is likely 

that such a transition would take place near the Irvine Transportation Center (ITC). 

Three options for this transition exist, including: 

1. A transition north of the ITC, previously examined by the Authority, routing the rail 

line along the SR-133 toll road corridor before joining the SR-241 toll road corridor. 

This option would have required either a new station to serve high-speed rail, or the 

relocation of the ITC to a new location near Jeffrey Road. The City of Irvine is on 

record opposing the ITC’s relocation. 

2. A southeast route, beginning south of the ITC, through either the city of Irvine or 

Lake Forest. Possible alignments could be along major arterials such as Alton 

Parkway or Bake Parkway, both of which are meandering and largely developed on 

either side. 

3. A route traversing the former El Toro Marine Air Station property, which could be 

challenging given the current plans for the site’s redevelopment. Any of these 

options would require extensive disruption of existing and planned land uses, call for 

significant land and right-of-way acquisition, and generate significant controversy 

from residents and cities along the proposed alignment. 

Any of these options would require extensive disruption of existing and planned land 

uses, call for significant land and right-of-way acquisition, and generate significant 

controversy from residents and cities along the proposed alignment. 

In the south, the most likely transition would be near the border of Orange and San 

Diego counties, just north of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and near 

Basilone Road. The land east of the I-5 Freeway is part of San Onofre State Beach. 

The transition would require either a “flyover” crossing of the I-5 Freeway, or a short 

tunnel beneath the freeway. Such a crossing would require the permission of the 

California State Parks Department and the establishment of a use easement to permit 

rail to operate within the park. 

6.4.4 Impacts to Adjacent Land Uses 

As mentioned above, in order to bypass the South Orange County cities of San Juan 

Capistrano, Dana Point, and San Clemente, it would be necessary for the rail corridor to 

divert to a new Inland Bypass route somewhere in the vicinity of Irvine or Lake Forest, 

and pass through the cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa 

Margarita, and San Clemente on its way south to reconnect with the existing LOSSAN 

corridor. 

West of the closed El Toro Marine Base, existing land uses are largely agricultural, 

becoming primarily residential in the cities of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Rancho 

Santa Margarita. Should the rail corridor be located within the SR-241 toll road right-ofway, south of Oso Parkway, the land there is largely undeveloped, although the 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 48 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

alignment would pass west of General Thomas F. Riley Wilderness Park and just east of 

the Rancho Mission Viejo Ecological Reserve. 

There would be potential impacts from the introduction of this new transportation facility 

to these adjacent land uses. As mentioned above, land uses in South Orange County 

are generally residential in nature, but also include office parks, light 

industrial/warehouses, commercial/retail developments, recreational resources and open 

space. 

Potential impacts could include: 

• Community Impacts, such as a change in “Quality of Life”, impacts to residential 

home values, or economic losses to the local business community, and new 

costs to cities along the rail corridor as a result of construction and rail 

operations, as well as the introduction of new visual impacts. 

• Property Impacts (including the need to acquire properties and businesses for 

right-of-way or to secure easements, as well as changes to their valuation as a 

result of their proximity to the rail line.) 

• Noise and Vibration. While the construction of a new rail corridor would allow the 

opportunity to build using the highest level of materials available (such as 

concrete ties and continuously-welded steel rail), residents and businesses might 

still experience an impact from the noise and associated vibration which naturally 

accompany train operations. 

• Pedestrian access/Barrier Issues. The new, double-tracked rail corridor might 

pose barrier issues, bisecting a community or reducing existing pedestrian 

access opportunities into areas that had not had such issues previously. 

• Traffic circulation. Depending on the alignments selected, there might be need to 

provide at-grade or grade separated crossing of streets and highways along the 

route. This could have an impact on the traffic circulation patterns and roadway 

network. 

6.4.5 Costs of the New Corridor 

Costs for an Inland Bypass Alternative rail corridor cannot be accurately predicted 

without a specific alignment and profile. However, given the costs of land acquisition, 

construction (including tunneling) and costs of tracks, signaling and station construction, 

it is likely that the costs would be in the billions of dollars. 

As a point of comparison, the Authority’s previous analysis of possible Inland Bypass 

Alternative routes would call for 62 miles of new double tracking, much of it on a 

structure, in a tunnel, or on a long-span bridge, as the rail line crosses several canyons 

and rivers. The Authority determined the costs associated with an Inland corridor to be 

approximately $1 billion more than the conventional improvements proposed for the 

LOSSAN corridor in the same area. This conclusion was for an electrified, passengeronly system capable of negotiating sustained grades of up to 3.5%. The cost would 

increase significantly from that estimate as a profile to accommodate conventional 

passenger trains or freight along the same alignment. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 49 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.4.6 Train Service and Performance Benefits/Impacts 

The creation of a new, double-tracked rail corridor on an Inland Bypass Alternative 

corridor would provide increased track capacity, and could provide access to a new rail 

market along its route. However, it would be substantially longer, and the grades and 

curves along a potential alignment (with or without tunneling) would likely increase 

running times. Because there are fewer people, and a generally lower level of 

development in the interior portions of Orange County, and because regulatory and 

operating agencies would likely insist that the new corridor be fully grade-separated, it is 

possible that there would be opportunities for improved safety. Reliability would be 

improved by the presence of two mainline tracks, and from the perspective of passenger 

rail service, the absence of freight service on the Inland Bypass Alternative corridor 

could also yield increased reliability. 

These positives would be outweighed by the negative impacts to train service and 

performance as a result of the longer length of the inland route, and the costs of building 

and establishing new service in this area. 

There is also a significant question as to how Amtrak (provider of the Pacific Surfliner 

intercity rail service) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (operator of the 

Metrolink commuter rail service) would be affected. Would they seek to continue to 

serve the existing LOSSAN corridor, or would they opt instead to serve the Inland 

corridor only? Would the existing and future markets along both corridors justify a high 

level of service to both? More likely, ridership on both Amtrak and Metrolink services 

would suffer as a result of the relocation of the rail corridor. 

While there would be the possibility of a new station location which could serve residents 

of the Talega development in San Clemente and the new communities which are 

envisioned in the master plan for the development of Rancho Mission Viejo, passenger 

and commuter rail service might be lost in San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan 

Capistrano and Laguna Niguel. Particularly in the community of San Juan Capistrano, 

which has a long positive history with railroads, and in Laguna Niguel where the City 

recently opened a Metrolink station, this might create an undesirable condition. 

As well, whether the combined rail owners and operators would be able (or willing) to 

assume maintenance of the two corridors remains to be determined. In early May 2003 

the Department sent a request for information to Amtrak and Metrolink, seeking their 

input and best assessment as to what the creation of an Inland Bypass Alternative 

alignment would do to their service planning and operational considerations. Their 

responses raised questions about organizational responsibility for acquisition, 

development and maintenance of the new right-of-way, as well as a concern about 

operational benefits in terms of scheduling or ridership as a result of a new inland route. 

Amtrak in particular stressed the ridership in San Juan Capistrano, fifth overall in the 

Pacific Surfliner corridor. The complete text of their letters can be found in Appendix D. 

If service moves exclusively to the new corridor, the lower population densities of the 

Inland communities and the decrease in ridership as passengers who previously 

traveled by rail chose other modes could result in reduced operating revenues despite 

the increased costs involved in the construction of an Inland Bypass Alternative corridor. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 50 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.4.7 Implications for the existing LOSSAN corridor 

Given the grades found within the Inland Bypass Alternative Study area, it is highly likely 

that freight service would need to remain on the existing LOSSAN corridor, and that the 

Inland Bypass corridor would be exclusively for the use of passenger (intercity and 

commuter) rail services. This would result in a situation where two rail corridors existed 

in South Orange County, with environmental and community issues along each, and no 

removal of the existing rail corridor along the coastline in Dana Point and San Clemente. 

Elimination or relocation of stations as a result of the Inland corridor would reduce 

accessibility to rail service for residents of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna 

Woods, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and San 

Clemente. 

6.4.8 Summary and Recommendation on the Inland Bypass Alternatives 

An Inland Bypass Route would not be a practicable alternative due to the following 

factors: 

• It represents a long and slow alternative 

• It would be the most expensive alternative studied, significantly more than any of the 

proposed improvements along the existing LOSSAN corridor 

• It raises considerable environmental issues 

• It features grades steep enough to require extensive tunneling, all-but-eliminating the 

possibility of the new route’s use as a freight corridor. 

• Retention of the existing alignment to accommodate freight creates a situation in 

which environmental and community issues are created on two corridors, rather than 

the opportunity to improve conditions along the existing corridor, with no benefits 

either to South Orange County cities, the environment, or to rail operators. 

Much of the impetus behind the Inland Bypass alternative was a continuing concern over 

the further study of LOSSAN improvements through downtown San Juan Capistrano and 

the coastal alignment through San Clemente. As discussed in the following sections, 

those alternatives are recommended for elimination. In a similar manner, it is proposed 

the Inland Bypass be dropped from further study in the Program EIR/EIS. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 51 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

6.5 SAN CLEMENTE/DANA POINT 

A number of design options exist in the the San Clemente/Dana Point area, including the “NoBuild” (maintaining the existing conditions) option, two trench options, and three tunnel options, 

as shown below: 

• No-Build 

• Short Tunnel – I-5 

• Long Split Tunnel (with station) 

• Short Trench (along the existing alignment) 

• Long Trench 

• Long Single Tunnel (without station) 

The following subsections provide descriptions of the each of the options in San Clemente and 

Dana Point (except for the No-Build option), and the recommendation of whether the option be 

carried forward for further evaluation or eliminated. (It is important to note that the “No-Build” 

option represents the existing conditions and will always be carried forward for further 

consideration) 

Alignment and Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 6-8): 

Short Tunnel – I-5: This option would straighten the Dana Point curve, and double-track 

the corridor along the existing right-of-way until just north of the San Clemente Metrolink 

station, where the alignment would begin to enter into a trench and then turn inland, 

tunneling just north of Avenida Pico, where a new station would be provided in an open 

trench. The alignment would remain in a twin-bored tunnel beneath the Interstate 5 right-ofway, leaving the right-of-way just north of Basilone Road and exiting the tunnel and 

returning to grade level at San Onofre Creek, and rejoining the existing LOSSAN corridor. 

The Short Tunnel option would improve train performance and would reduce 

environmental impacts from the existing conditions – providing considerable benefits to 

the environment and community. 

The Short Tunnel option would provide increased train capacity, and would improve 

running times, safety, and reliability, due to the extensive grade-separated segment from 

Avenida Pico to the southern city limits. In addition, operational and maintenance costs 

would be reduced by getting the tracks away from the beach. This alternative would 

require a twin-bore tunnel over 6 miles in length, and therefore would be considerably 

more costly than the Short Trench alternative (an estimated $500 million more). 

Nevertheless, in spite of its cost, the Short Tunnel is assessed to have a positive costeffectiveness because of the train performance benefits that result from this option. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 52 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

The Short Tunnel option would have community benefits and reduce environmental 

impacts. The Short Tunnel option would reduce the “barrier effect”, improve coastal 

access and beach aesthetics, and significantly reduce noise and vibration issues and 

coastal bluff impacts by resulting in the removal of the track along the beach at San 

Clemente. However, this option could have property impacts on as many as 15 acres of 

non-residential land, as acquisition of right-of-way easements from property (mostly 

commercial) would be required for the short tunnel segment beneath the transition from 

I-5 to the LOSSAN corridor near Avenida del Pico, and the development of a new 

station. 

Although there are potential property impacts associated with Short Tunnel, the public is 

supportive of this concept to remove the existing track from the beach in San Clemente. 

Long Split Tunnel - with Station: This option is similar to the Interstate 5 Long Tunnel 

option, except it would utilize two tunnels (rather than a single tunnel), which allows for a 

station in San Clemente. This option, bypasses both the sharp curve in Dana Point and the 

coastal environmental and pedestrian concerns in San Clemente. This option would 

transition from the existing right-of-way into a trench approximately 500 feet south of 

Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano, entering into a tunnel just before coming under 

the right-of-way of Interstate 5. The option would continue beneath Interstate 5, leaving the 

right-of-way just north of Basilone Road, exiting the tunnel and returning to grade level at 

San Onofre Creek, then rejoining the existing railroad right-of-way. 

The Long Split Tunnel option would have the same performance benefits as the Short 

Tunnel option and even greater environmental and community benefits since this option 

would result in the complete removal of tracks from the coast. However, there are very 

significant construction challenges incumbent in this option that would require two tunnel 

segments (both twin-bore tunnels) exceeding 5-miles in length. Furthermore, this option 

is expected to cost over $300 million more than the Short Tunnel option. 

The Long Split Tunnel option would remove the existing rail line from the coastline, 

resulting in greatly improved coastal access and reduced barrier issues. Bluff impacts 

from trains would be eliminated. This option could displace up to eight acres of nonresidential property, primarily in the area of the north portal in San Juan Capistrano, and 

between the tunnel segments at the station site. This option allows for a replacement 

rail station, near Avenida del Pico that could support both Metrolink and Amtrak service 

in San Clemente. The Long Split Tunnel option would greatly reduce noise and vibration 

impacts associated with rail service, and improve beach aesthetics. 

Public acceptability for alignment options that would avoid the sensitive coastal areas 

has been strongly positive. Although it is a costly option, the Long Split Tunnel option is 

particularly attractive to the region since it would remove the tracks completely along the 

coast, through both San Clemente and Dana Point. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 53 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-8 – Options to be Retained for Further Study in San Clemente/Dana Point 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 54 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Alignment and Station Location Options to be Eliminated from Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 6-9): 

Short Trench: This option provides for double-tracking while following the existing railroad 

right-of-way. A short trench would be constructed through the San Clemente pier area to 

allow for safe pedestrian access across the tracks. Additional pedestrian under-crossings 

would also be constructed along the section of the corridor traveling at-grade on the beach. 

The Short Trench option has severe construction impacts and high negative impacts to 

the environment and the community, yet offers only a marginal improvement to train 

service and performance. 

Although the Short Trench option would increase track capacity (due to double tracking), 

it would provide no change in running times, no net improvements to safety, and no 

change to reliability. The Short Trench option offers significant constructability 

challenges, most notable the construction of the trench in the Pier Bowl and construction 

around Mariposa Point, while simultaneously maintaining access to the San Clemente 

Pier and existing rail service. The construction of the Short Trench option would also 

impact San Clemente businesses, which depend upon visitors to the beach. It has been 

assessed to have a low cost-effectiveness (based upon the benefits it provides and the 

impacts it imposes, compared to its cost). 

The Short Trench option poses very significant constructability challenges, most notably 

because of the nature of the beach itself and the coastal bluffs (particularly at Mariposa 

Point – see Figure 6-9). Attempting to stabilize the beach and fragile coastal bluffs 

would require major construction efforts, including a 10-20 foot high seawall at the base 

of the bluffs, retaining walls within the trench itself, and tie-backs at the top of the bluffs, 

resulting in drastic changes to the existing environment. The use of heavy construction 

equipment in this sensitive beach and coastal bluff environment would also be 

problematic. Moreover, the constrained space available for construction of the trench 

and the need to maintain rail service during construction would create significant 

impacts. 

The Short Trench option would have the highest environmental impacts. The covered 

portion of the trench would improve coastal access and reduce the barrier effect of the 

rail corridor in the Pier Bowl area. Other areas, where the trench was open or in 

transition would have greatly reduced access opportunities. Coastal access during 

construction would be greatly constrained in the Pier Bowl area. The Short Trench 

option reduces the barrier effect of the existing rail corridor through the downtown area, 

by providing a covered trench. However, this option would do little to reduce or remove 

the impact of the rail corridor on adjacent residential uses. Additionally, the barrier effect 

between residential and recreational uses would increase as a result of the trench. The 

Short Trench option would impact beach aesthetics by imposing new concrete structures 

(the trench and its transitions) on the beach. The Short Trench option would not remove 

the rail line from the beach, but rather would submerge it into the beach, creating new, 

different impacts (including the need for the stabilization methods noted above). The 

beach and bluff impacts of the Short Trench concept would result in the highest impacts 

on natural resources and have major geological and soils constraints. Construction on 

the beach and bluffs would have high impacts to erodible soils, unstable slopes, and 

aesthetics and visual quality. Property impacts with the Short Trench option would 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 55 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

include the likely need to acquire property during the construction period in order to 

stage equipment and materials. 

There is strong public support for removing this alternative from further consideration. 

Long Trench: This option is similar to the Short Trench in that it would also remain largely 

within the existing railroad right-of-way, and would include curve straightening at Dana 

Point. The option would begin a bored tunnel through Mariposa Point, just south of the 

existing Metrolink station (at Avenida Pico and El Camino Real), then transition north of the 

pier into a cut-and-cover trench, which would continue until approximately 1,600 feet north 

of the San Diego County line. 

Although the Long Trench option offers significant improvements to train service and 

performance, it has severe construction impacts and high negative impacts to the 

environment and the community, as well as high construction costs. 

Like the Short Trench option, the trench’s double track would provide increased train 

capacity. Unlike the Short Trench, the Long Trench option would improve running times, 

safety, and reliability, due to the extensive grade-separated segment from Mariposa 

Point to the southern city limits. The construction of the Long Trench option would also 

impact San Clemente businesses, which depend upon visitors to the beach. While more 

costly than the Short Trench option (estimated $150 million additional cost), the Long 

Trench is assessed to have a positive cost-effectiveness as a result of the benefits to 

train performance. 

The Long Trench option would reduce the “barrier effect”, due to the covered trench and 

tunnel section. However, there would be access issues during the construction phase, 

especially along the beach and in the Pier Bowl areas. Coastal impacts would result 

from the Long Trench option, as tunneling under the bluffs at Mariposa Point would be 

required. Property Impacts would be significant, as acquisition of property would be 

required for the tunnel segment beneath the residential subdivision at Mariposa Point. 

Noise and Vibration issues would be minimized as a result of the trench (and greatly 

reduced in the tunnel segment of the Long Trench). 

The Long Trench option poses significant constructability challenges, most notably 

because of the nature of the beach itself and the coastal bluffs (particularly at Mariposa 

Point – see Figure 6-10). The use of heavy construction equipment in this sensitive 

beach and coastal bluff environment would also be problematic. Moreover, the 

constrained space available for construction of the trench and the need to maintain rail 

service during construction would create significant impacts. 

The Long Trench option would have high environmental impacts. The covered portion of 

the trench would improve coastal access and reduce the barrier effect of the rail corridor 

in the Pier Bowl area. Other areas, where the trench was open or in transition, would 

have greatly reduced access opportunities. Coastal access during construction would 

be greatly constrained in the Pier Bowl area. The Long Trench alternative would impact 

beach aesthetics by imposing new concrete structures (the trench and its transitions) on 

the beach. The Long Trench option would not remove the rail line from the beach, but 

rather would submerge it into the beach, creating new, different impacts (including the 

need for the stabilization methods noted above). The beach impacts of the Long Trench 

concept would result in high impacts on natural resources and have major geological 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 56 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

and soils constraints. Construction on the beach and bluffs would have high impacts to 

erodible soils, unstable slopes, and aesthetics and visual quality. Property impacts with 

the Long Trench option would include the likely need to acquire property through the 

residential community at Mariposa Point and during the construction period in order to 

stage equipment and materials. 

There is strong public support for removing this alternative from further consideration. 

Long Single Tunnel (No Station): This option is similar to the Interstate 5 Long Tunnel 

with station, except it would utilize a single (rather than split) tunnel, which does not allow for 

a station in San Clemente. Like the Long Tunnel with Station option, the new alignment 

bypasses both the sharp curve in Dana Point and the coastal environmental and pedestrian 

concerns in San Clemente. This option would leave the existing right-of-way in a trench 

approximately 500 feet south of Avenida Aeropuerto in San Juan Capistrano, entering into a 

tunnel just before coming under the right-of-way of Interstate 5. The option would continue 

beneath Interstate 5, leaving the right-of-way just north of Basilone Road, exiting the tunnel 

and returning to grade level at San Onofre Creek, then rejoining the existing railroad right-ofway 

The Long Single Tunnel option would have many of the benefits and impacts as the 

Long Split Tunnel option. However, there are very significant additional construction 

challenges incumbent in this option. A single tunnel more than 6 miles in length is much 

more expensive, and difficult to construct than the split tunnels proposed in the Long 

Tunnel (with station) option. The Long Single Tunnel option, that requires a single twin 

bore tunnel exceeding 11-miles, is expected to cost at least $400 million more than the 

Long Split Tunnel option. Furthermore, this extremely long tunnel would require several 

large ventilation shafts to the surface and may require cross-overs to be constructed 

between the two twin bore tunnels. 

Public acceptability for alignment options that would avoid the sensitive coastal areas 

has been strongly positive; however this option would offer no opportunity for rail service 

in San Clemente. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 57 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-9 – Options to Be Eliminated from Further Consideration 

in San Clemente/Dana Point 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 58 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6-10 – Existing Rail Corridor at Mariposa Point 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

NARROWING OF OPTIONS

Page 59 

6.6 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 

A number of design options exist in the city of San Juan Capistrano, including the “No-Build” 

(maintaining the existing conditions) option, two covered trench (Cut-and-Cover tunnel) options, 

and one tunnel option, as shown below: 

• No-Build 

• Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

• Trabuco Creek Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

• Interstate 5 Tunnel 

The following subsections provide descriptions of the each of the options in San Juan 

Capistrano (except for the No-Build option), and the recommendation of whether the option be 

carried forward for further evaluation or eliminated. (It is important to note that the “No-Build” 

option represents the existing conditions and will always be carried forward for further 

consideration) 

Alignment and Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment options are recommended for further evaluation (see Figure 6-11): 

I-5 Tunnel: This option would bypass the downtown area of the City of San Juan 

Capistrano completely by realigning the railroad right-of-way beneath Interstate 5. The new 

alignment would begin near State Route 73, where the tracks would begin entering a trench. 

The alignment would then leave the existing right-of-way, entering a twin-bored tunnel. The 

alignment would then pass beneath Trabuco Creek, Camino Capistrano and Junipero Serra 

Road before proceeding beneath the Interstate 5 right-of-way. The alignment would leave 

the right-of-way of Interstate 5 at San Juan Creek Road, passing beneath Camino 

Capistrano and exiting the tunnel north of Avenida Aeropuerto, where it would rejoin the 

existing LOSSAN corridor. This option accommodates the possibility of retaining the existing 

single-track line and service through downtown San Juan Capistrano. 

The I-5 Tunnel option provides major benefits to train performance and could benefit 

historical resources by moving at least the intercity and freight services away from the 

downtown historical district. 

The I-5 Tunnel option would greatly increase track capacity, due to double tracking. This 

tunnel concept would reduce running times, improve safety, and increase reliability due 

to its completely grade-separated configuration. However, this option has significant 

constructability challenges with a 3-mile twin bore tunnel configuration under I-5, and is 

expected to cost about $400 million more than a Downtown Cut and Cover Tunnel 

option. For these reasons, it has been given a negative cost-effectiveness rating. There 

would not be an intercity station provided along the I-5 tunnel bypass of San Juan 

Capistrano. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

NARROWING OF OPTIONS

Page 60 

The public acceptability of this option, as determined by comments and feedback from 

previous public meetings, is mostly positive. The City of San Juan Capistrano has 

requested that this alignment option alignment continue to be considered, but has also 

requested that this option maintains the existing rail line as a spur track to retain local 

service. 

Trabuco Creek Cut and Cover Tunnel: This option would realign the existing alignment 

through San Juan Capistrano’s downtown to the west, loosely following the east bank of 

Trabuco Creek. Starting approximately at Junipero Serra Road, the alignment would veer 

west away from the existing alignment. It would then transition into a covered trench and 

provide a replacement station due west of the existing station, before proceeding under Del 

Obispo. From here, the option would transition back to grade, either by remaining on the 

east bank of Trabuco Creek or by turning back to the existing LOSSAN alignment, before 

crossing San Juan Creek. 

The Trabuco Creek Cut and Cover Tunnel option was suggested for investigation by the 

City of San Juan Capistrano as a design refinement of the Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel 

option, at the March 4, 2003 OCTA agency meeting for the LOSSAN technical studies. This 

option provides the benefits of the Downtown Cut and Cover Tunnel option (increased track 

capacity, reduced running times, improved safety, and increased reliability), while at the 

same time it would move construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel to the western edge of 

San Juan Capistrano’s historic district reducing the potential for construction impacts, as 

well as eliminating the need for the demolition and reconstruction of the downtown parking 

garage adjacent to the existing depot. This option would also provide for the construction of 

a new passenger rail station (and possible multimodal facility) in downtown San Juan 

Capistrano. This option would include a grade separation at Del Obispo Street, removing a 

major traffic network bottleneck that can occur when trains are passing through the 

intersection. 

Public acceptability of this option is positive, as determined by comments and feedback from 

recently held public workshops. The conceptual engineering plans and profiles have been 

developed for this option and are available for public review. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

NARROWING OF OPTIONS

Page 61 

Figure 6-11 – Options Retained for Further Consideration in San Juan Capistrano 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

NARROWING OF OPTIONS

Page 62 

Alignment and Station Location Option to be Eliminated from Further Evaluation 

Based on information obtained through the technical evaluations and public input, the following 

alignment option is recommended to be eliminated from further evaluation (see Figure 6-12): 

Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel: This option would construct a cut and cover tunnel 

through San Juan Capistrano’s downtown. Near Junipero Serra Road, the alignment would 

enter a double-tracked open concrete trench. North of the existing San Juan Capistrano 

Depot, the trench would become a covered trench. The covered trench would pass beneath 

an existing downtown parking structure, and then would become an open trench again. 

Near San Juan Creek, the alignment would return to grade. This option would also include 

curve straightening the alignment just south of the San Juan Creek crossing. 

The Downtown Cut-and-Cover Tunnel would have severe construction impacts and 

property impacts on Downtown San Juan Capistrano and the historic district, and would 

have negative impacts on the community, and historical resources. 

This option would increase track capacity, reduce running times, improve safety, and 

increase reliability. However, this option would have major constructability impacts, 

because of limited available right-of-way in the historic district, the close proximity of 

sensitive historic and cultural resources (including the historic downtown station), the 

need to maintain rail service during construction, and the need to demolish and replace 

the existing downtown parking structure and surface parking facilities (causing significant 

disruption to the downtown business community during construction). For these 

reasons, it has been given a negative cost-effectiveness rating. 

Historical resources could be directly impacted with this option, largely during 

construction. Property impacts would be very high in this option, as property would need 

to be acquired for right-of-way, and businesses would be impacted during construction, 

particularly as a result of the demolition of the parking structure (which would be rebuilt 

after the covered trench had been constructed). There would be noise and vibration 

impacts, both during construction, and in areas of open trench after construction. 

The public acceptability of this option, as determined by comments and feedback from 

previous public meetings, is extremely negative. The City of San Juan Capistrano is on 

record as being opposed to this option, and has asked that it be eliminated from further 

consideration. They believe the construction of this option would have long-term 

detrimental effects on the community. For reasons of cost, constructability, costeffectiveness, potential impacts to historical resources and property, as well as public 

acceptability, it is recommended that this option be eliminated. 
 

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

NARROWING OF OPTIONS

Page 63 

Figure 6-12 – Option to Be Eliminated from Further Consideration 

in San Juan Capistrano 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

COMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Page 64 

7.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

As part of the Strategic Plan’s development, five Public Workshops were held. The 

workshops provided the public with an overview of the corridor and the rail 

improvements under study, including information on: 

• The purpose and goals of the Strategic Plan 

• The need for improvements to the corridor 

• Current and projected weekday train volumes 

• Corridor facts, including rail owners and operators and details on Freight services 

• Types of rail services provided (Intercity Rail, Commuter Rail, and Freight) 

• The Strategic Plan timetable 

• Ranges of costs, rail performance issues, and community/environmental issues 

of projects throughout the corridor 

• Design options and alternatives at four key locations along the corridor where the 

range of options was sufficiently broad to allow the screening out of some 

options, the recommendations for screening, and the rationale and criteria used 

to reach the recommended screening decisions. 

• The Planning Process, including timelines for the completion of the Strategic 

Plan, and both the Department and Authority’s Draft Program-level 

Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Statements. 

Public Workshops were held over five evenings, in the following locations, according to 

the schedule listed below: 

City Date Time Location 

City of Encinitas March 25, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Community & Senior Center, 1140 Oakcrest Park Dr. 

City of San Diego March 26, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Caltrans District 11, 2829 Juan Street 

City of Anaheim March 27, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. City Hall West, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard 

City of San Clemente April 2, 2003 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Community Center, 100 North Calle Seville 

City of Norwalk April 3, 2003 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Norwalk Marriott, 13111 Sycamore Drive 

Attendance at the workshops was good, with more than 500 persons total at the 

workshops, with the bulk of this attendance at the April 2nd San Clemente meeting. 

Attendees were asked to complete surveys, designed to assess their issues and 

concerns regarding the proposed LOSSAN corridor improvements and the 

recommended options screening. A total of 326 surveys were completed and returned. 

The majority of the surveys returned were from the San Clemente meeting, and thus 

reflective of the issues in that community. 

The surveys consisted of six questions. While concerns continue to be expressed about 

individual options, survey responses were generally positive and supportive of the 

screening recommendations, and reflected the concerns of the communities at which the 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

COMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Page 65 

Public Workshops were held. At the San Clemente meeting, for example, surveys 

showed strong support for a tunnel option that would relocate the tracks off the beach. 

Conversely, respondents at the Encinitas meeting indicated the importance of grade 

separations and lagoon restoration. 

The goals of the Public Workshops were to provide the public with information and facts 

about the corridor, its types of rail service, current and projected levels of weekday train 

volumes, and the proposed rail improvement projects, timing, potential impacts and 

benefits, and recommendations for screening, and to solicit their involvement and 

opinion. While some concerns remain about remaining options and project timelines 

(particularly in the South Orange County area), as the Strategic Business Plan and 

Program-level EIR/EIS move forward, it appears that the public is “on board” with the 

recommendations made. 

Following the Public Workshops, on March 25, 2003, the Authority presented to its 

Board the Screening Recommendations for the LOSSAN corridor as an information item. 

At that meeting a substantial number of persons spoke on behalf of the 

recommendations presented, and their comments incorporated into the official record of 

the meeting, including San Diego County Supervisor Pam Slater, the mayor and vicemayor of San Clemente, Dana Point city manager, as well as representatives from the 

Surfrider Foundation, Del Mar Lagoon Committee, Orange County Transportation 

Authority, and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 

The speakers noted that the alternatives presented have met the concerns of 

communities along the corridor, helping to achieve consensus and support for the 

project. There was unanimous support of the screening recommendations. Speakers 

from South Orange County also called for the elimination of the Short Tunnel option, due 

to potential impacts to a planned desalination plant at San Juan Creek, and to the 

Marblehead development in San Clemente. 

In addition to the Public Workshop surveys and comments received at the March Board 

meeting, nearly one hundred postcards and letters have been received by the Authority, 

expressing support for the screening recommendations as presented at the Public 

Workshops and March 27th CHSRA Board meeting. 

In addition to the Public Workshops, the development of the Strategic Plan included 

continuing consultation and meetings with representatives of cities along the corridor, 

transportation agencies and rail operators. Working groups of stakeholders were formed 

in San Diego and Orange Counties (including the previously mentioned cities and 

organizations) and met throughout the process to provide comment and feedback on the 

evolving Strategic Business Plan. The recommendations in the Strategic Plan have the 

support of both working groups. 

Lastly, resources agencies at the state and federal level were involved at every stage of 

the Strategic Plan, and provided their comments and feedback on the criteria to be used 

in the evaluation of options and the screening recommendations. The recommendations 

presented here have been reviewed by the resources agencies, and have their support. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 66 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

8.0 A TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR RAIL 

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

The following section provides brief descriptions of the proposed rail improvements 

along the LOSSAN Corridor, beginning in the south (at San Diego’s Santa Fe Depot) 

and working northward to Los Angeles Union Station. A detailed analysis of these 

improvements will be accomplished during the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS and 

will be provided in that document. 

In addition to the descriptions of the projects under consideration, a draft timeline for the 

advancement of the projects has been created. The timelines discussed in this section 

are suggested time periods for projects to complete their required environmental 

clearance, preliminary design and permitting, final design and construction, subject to 

the availability of funding. This time frame is divided into three ranges: short-term, 

medium-term and long-term. The time periods are measured from the time following the 

publication of the Department’s Final Program Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Short-Term

Short-term refers to the period 1 to 3 years following the publication of the Final 

Program EIR/EIS. Work undertaken within this time period could include 

environmental clearance, preliminary design and permitting, or final design and 

construction. Depending on the complexity and location of the project, it could 

include all three. As a representation of what could be accomplished over the 

three periods, the examples shown indicate the timeline for a project’s final 

construction. Examples of potential projects that could be categorized as shortterm include: 

Project-Specific Environmental Documentation 

• Dana Point and San Clemente options 

• Oceanside to Carlsbad Double-tracking and Grade Separations 

• Encinitas Double-tracking and Grade Separations 

• Del Mar options 

• SR-52 to San Diego tunnel options 

Permitting and Final Design 

• Double Tracking through Camp Pendleton 

Construction 

• Los Angeles Union Station Run Through Tracks (through to construction) 

• Double Tracking through Camp Pendleton (through to construction) 

The run through tracks at Union Station are already undergoing a Project 

Specific environmental review. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 67 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Medium-Term

Medium-Term refers to the period 4 to 6 years following the publication of the 

Final Program EIR/EIS. Potential projects that could be categorized as mediumterm include: 

Project-Specific Environmental Documentation 

• Fourth Track – Commerce to Fullerton 

• San Juan Capistrano options 

Permitting and Final Design 

• Dana Point and San Clemente options 

• Fourth Track – Commerce to Fullerton 

Construction 

• Double Tracking and Grade Separation through Oceanside and Carlsbad 

• Double Tracking and Grade Separation through Encinitas 

• Double Tracking and Grade Separation from Rose Canyon to downtown 

San Diego (partial) 

Long-Term

Long-Term refers to the period more than 7 years following the publication of the 

Final Program EIR/EIS. Examples of potential projects that could be categorized 

as long-term include: 

Project-Specific Environmental Documentation 

• Fullerton to Irvine Double-tracking, Curve Straightening, and Grade 

Separations 

Permitting and Final Design 

• San Juan Capistrano options 

Construction 

• San Juan Capistrano options 

• Fullerton to Irvine Double Tracking, Curve Straightening and Grade 

Separations 

• Double tracking and Grade Separation – Carlsbad to Oceanside 

• Del Mar options 

• Tunneling under Miramar Hill 

• Complete Grade Separation from Rose Canyon to downtown San Diego 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 68 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Exhibits 8-1 and 8-2, included in this section (Strategic Plan Timeline and Strategic Plan 

Costs/Performance, respectively) provide a graphical reference for the description of 

projects in the subsections below. The exhibits also show: 

• Generalized costs of each project (in millions of dollars) 

• Benefits or impacts to train service and performance 

• Additional miles of double track added as a result of the project 

• Number of curves eliminated 

• Generalized level of community and environmental issues (and the primary 

nature of these issues) 

• The project’s phaseability 

Generalized costs are provided for each project. The final estimated costs of a project 

depend on a number of factors, and are outside the scope of this Program-level 

document. Instead, costs are shown as “less expensive or more expensive”, so that 

projects may be compared one with another. 

Depending on its nature or length, a project may have differing impacts or benefits to 

train service and performance. The relative benefit on performance is shown for each 

project. 

Double tracking is a key element of the proposed rail improvement projects. Similar to 

increasing the number of lanes on a roadway, addition of a second mainline track would 

permit trains to pass in either direction without making one train wait for the second to 

exit a single-tracked section of the corridor. Each project area’s description includes 

additional miles of double track added in a project area. 

Tight curves along the rail corridor require trains to slow in order to negotiate them 

safely. This reduction in speed translates to increases in travel time. The elimination of 

these operational constraints (through “curve straightening” - realignment of the rail line 

to allow for more gentle curves) would produce significant benefits to train service and 

performance. The number of curves that would be eliminated with each project is 

shown. 

Generalized information on the major community and environmental issues likely to be 

faced in the project area is noted. 

Phaseability relates to whether or not a project may be constructed in discrete segments 

over time. Certain projects (tunnels, for example) must be completed in their entirety 

and are not phaseable, whereas other rail improvements (such as double tracking or 

grade separations) can be constructed in sections. The relative level of phaseability 

(Phaseable, Less Phaseable, or Not Phaseable) for each project area is given. 

8.1 San Diego County 

Description of Projects 

Area: San Diego (between San Diego Santa Fe Depot and State Route 52)

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including partial or full grade 

separation)
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 69 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

This project would provide for double tracking, curve straightening and the 

construction of a trench beginning just north of San Diego Santa Fe Depot. This 

new open and covered trench would allow for the grade separation of a number 

of closely spaced streets (including Beech, Cedar, Fir, Grape, Hawthorne, Laurel, 

and Palm), in the Downtown, Middletown and Old Town neighborhoods. Other 

streets in this area receiving grade separation include: 

• Sassafras St. – New undercrossing 

• Vine St. – New undercrossing 

• Washington St. – New undercrossing 

• Noell St. – New undercrossing 

• Rosecrans Blvd./Taylor St. – New undercrossing 

As well, new double-track bridges over the San Diego River and Tecolote Creek, 

and realignment of the Elvira curve would be improvement projects undertaken 

within this area. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

Construction (some portions) 

Construction (remaining 

portions) 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 70 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Area: University Towne Centre (San Diego)

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (including tunnel under 

University City w/new station, or tunnel under I-5 

Projects in this area would provide expanded double tracking, curve straightening 

and the construction of a tunnel (under University Towne Centre, or under the I-5 

freeway right-of-way). Either tunnel would dramatically reduce the train 

performance impacts and reduced speeds of the existing corridor as it winds 

through Miramar Canyon (eliminating 12 curves in the process!). Both tunnels 

would transition to a covered trench and a return to the existing LOSSAN corridor 

alignment near the Sorrento Valley Coaster station. The possibility of a new 

multimodal facility in University City could offer a new Amtrak Pacific Surfliner 

passenger rail stop, as well as provide for a new commuter rail station and 

provide for increased intermodal connectivity with transit and Bus Rapid 

Transit/Light Rail in University City (a major employment center and dense 

residential neighborhood located near the campus of the University of California 

at San Diego). 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design Construction 

Area: Del Mar

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (via a Tunnel, either beneath 

Camino Del Mar, or beneath the I-5 Freeway right-of-way)

Section 6.2 discusses Del Mar project options in detail. In addition to the projects 

mentioned in the detailed design option discussion is a new double-tracked 

bridge over the San Dieguito River (adjacent to the Del Mar Fairgrounds). 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design Construction 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 71 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Area: Encinitas

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including partial or full grade separation)

Section 6.3 discusses this area’s project options in detail. In addition to the 

projects discussed there, new double tracking would be constructed north of the 

San Dieguito River. As well, new double-tracked crossings over the San Elijo 

and Batiquitos lagoons would be constructed in this area. Like other lagoon 

crossings in San Diego County, these new concrete structures would have a 

beneficial impact on the lagoons, allowing for the removal of old structures and 

reduction of berms. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

Construction (some portions) 

Construction (remaining 

portions) 

Area: Carlsbad to Oceanside

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening along existing alignment 

(including partial or full grade separation)

Projects in this area would provide expanded double tracking, curve straightening 

along the existing alignment. New, double-tracked crossings over Aqua 

Hedionda and Buena Vista lagoons would provide an opportunity for increased 

tidal flow, and reduce lagoon impact through the removal of the existing 

structures (and their accompanying creosote-piles and berms). New, doubletracked bridges would be constructed over Alta Loma Creek and San Luis Rey 

River. Finally, the siding near Oceanside Transit Center would be extended as 

part of improvements to the corridor in this area. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

Construction (some portions) 

Construction (remaining 

portions) 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 72 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Area: Camp Pendleton

Double Tracking along existing alignment

Within the Camp Pendleton area a second mainline track would be constructed 

within the existing right of way from Control Point (CP) Pulgas to CP Ocean. 

Given that the improvements would be performed within the existing right-of-way, 

it is likely that all phases of the environmental assessment, design, and 

construction could be completed within the Short-term. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

Construction 

 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 73 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

8.2 Orange County 

Description of Projects (by Area) 

Area: San Clemente/Dana Point

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (via Tunnel)

Project options in San Clemente and Dana Point are discussed in detail as part 

of Section 6.5. As noted, the Long Split I-5 Tunnel would provide for a new 

intercity/commuter rail station at Avenida Pico. Existing at-grade crossings at 

Senda de la Playa in San Clemente, and Beach Road in Dana Point would be 

eliminated as part of the suggested improvements. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design Construction 

Area: San Juan Capistrano

Double Tracking and Curve Straightening (via Tunnel beneath the I-5 

Freeway right-of-way or a Cut and Cover Tunnel along Trabuco Creek)

Project options in San Juan Capistrano are discussed in detail as part of 

Section6.6. As part of the Trabuco Creek alignment option, a new grade 

separation at Del Obispo would be provided. As part of the I-5 Freeway option 

(should no rail spur be maintained to the existing Depot), the at-grade crossing at 

Cassidy would be eliminated. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design Construction 

Area: San Juan Capistrano to Irvine

Track and Signal Upgrades

Just north of San Juan Capistrano the existing corridor is already double-tracked 

to Irvine. In this area minor upgrades to track and signal equipment would be 

made. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 74 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

Area: Irvine to Fullerton

Double-Tracking and Curve Straightening, including partial or full grade 

separation

The area between Irvine and Fullerton contains areas of existing double tracking, 

as well as areas where the corridor continues to have a single track. There are a 

number of at-grade crossings within this section, which would receive partial or 

full grade separation. 

Given the urbanized nature of the area in which these improvements would be 

located, it is likely that they would be implemented over the Long-term. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

 Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

 Construction 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 75 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

TIMELINE OF LOSSAN CORRIDOR

8.3 Los Angeles County 

Description of Projects 

Area: Fullerton to Commerce

Addition of Fourth Main Track

The addition of a fourth main track would extend from the City of Commerce, just 

south of BNSF’s Hobart Yard to Fullerton Junction in North Orange County. This 

project would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way along the corridor, 

but would incorporate full grade-separation with all major arterials crossed in both 

Los Angeles and North Orange Counties. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering Permitting and Final Design Construction 

Area: Union Station (Los Angeles)

Run-through Tracks

Union Station currently uses a stub-end track configuration, meaning that trains 

enter and leave the station via the same set of tracks. Construction of runthrough tracks at Union Station would speed the dispatching of trains and provide 

for more access to train platforms. The project is currently in the environmental 

assessment and preliminary engineering phase. 

Short-term (1-3 years) Medium-term (4-8 years) Long-term (7+ years) 

Project-specific Environmental 

Documentation and 

Preliminary Engineering 

Permitting and Final Design 

Construction 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 76 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS

9.0 FUTURE PLANNING PROCESS 

The Strategic Plan represents one phase of the Department’s continuing study of 

LOSSAN corridor rail improvements. 

The Strategic Plan has been developed over a period of time in a very consultative 

manner, involving the public, cities along the corridor, transportation and resource 

agencies, rail owners and operators, and planning partners at the state and federal level. 

Following an review by corridor transportation agencies and rail working groups, the 

Strategic Plan will be released to the public as a Draft document. After a period of 

comment and revision, the Revised Draft will be accepted by the Department as a final 

document, and complementary adjunct to the Program-level EIR/EIS process. 

Subject to state budgetary constraints, the planning process for the Proposed Rail 

Corridor Improvement Studies will continue over the next several months, leading to the 

release of the Department’s Draft Program-level Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (PEIR/PEIS) in the Spring of 2004. 

Following the release of the Draft document, the public will have an opportunity to review 

and comment on the document for a period, leading up to its revision, acceptance and 

scheduled release as a Final document in Fall 2004. As has been mentioned previously, 

no rail improvement projects will be built as a result of the Strategic Plan or the 

PEIR/PEIS. These documents will provide the underlying basis and justification for 

future planning documents, which will be tiered off from this document, on a projectspecific basis, subject to budgetary and funding opportunities. Project-specific 

environmental clearances will go into significantly more detail, as required by state and 

federal law. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 77 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A - 

EXCERPTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL 

TECHNICAL REPORTS 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 78 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

Coastal Bluff Stabilization and Construction Issues 

in the LOSSAN Corridor 

SLOPE STABILITY 

Failure of adjacent natural slopes and/or construction cut slopes or retention structures is a concern in the 

Del Mar and San Clemente areas of the LOSSAN Corridor conventional rail alternatives. The following is 

a general discussion of areas along the proposed corridor identified as unstable (specifically, the trench 

alternatives along the beach/coastal bluffs in Del Mar and San Clemente), and potential measures that 

would have to be considered in order to achieve long-term stability of the proposed rail corridor 

improvements (Leighton & Associates 2003). 

Existing Stabilization Methods

A number of remedial or stabilization measures exist along the existing railway in the vicinity of the 

proposed rail corridor improvements. These include older improvements along the coastal bluff face 

through the cities of Del Mar and San Clemente that are in need of ongoing repair and or maintenance. 

For example, in Del Mar, wooden and concrete seawalls along portions of the bluff are currently 

protecting portions of the base of the bluff against erosion due to typical wave impact. However, these 

walls are occasionally of insufficient height to block heavy storm surf or at least require periodic 

maintenance to remain effective. In San Clemente, the existing rip-rap berms also requires maintenance. 

Other facilities that need ongoing maintenance include the storm drain and subdrain facilities along the 

bluffs in Del Mar and San Clemente. These include engineered but undersized facilities, drains rendered 

inoperable due to lack of maintenance, and un-engineered facilities, commonly temporary in nature, such 

as those installed by property owners upslope of the bluffs in San Clemente. In several locations, these 

drains were observed to be leaking and causing surface erosion and infiltration of water into the 

underlying soils. 

Such existing conditions must be taken into account even where relatively minor construction is proposed 

as part of a given rail corridor improvement. Potential slope reinforcement and protection measures that 

may be needed are discussed below. 

Stabilization of Bluff Toes

In areas where increased erosion could result in significant damage (i.e., erodible materials, such as 

compacted fill soils), stabilization at the bluff toe should be considered. Stabilization measures at the bluff 

toe can serve to preserve or increase lateral support. Methods for stabilization include wooden and 

concrete sea walls, steel piles and wood lagging walls, sand cement revetment, rock revetments, and 

beach replenishment. Details for sea wall construction, rock revetment details, and beach replenishment, 

are beyond the scope of this report, but are discussed in a site specific report on the Del Mar Bluffs 

(Leighton, 2001a). 

Stabilization of Bluff Faces

In areas where the erosion or failure of the existing seacliff would impact the proposed rail alignment by 

undermining the foundation or by deposition of debris from upslope areas, stabilization of the bluff face 

must be considered. Slope grading can be performed to stabilize the bluff and re-establish eroded and 

failed areas, as was done previously at several locations along the coastal rail route through San 

Clemente and Del Mar (Leighton & Associates 2003). 

Where sufficient railway right-of-way is available, slope grading would generally consist of the placement 

of compacted fill soils on the face of the slope to provide additional lateral support, flatten localized oversteepened areas, and allow for the removal of existing slope failures. Typical grading would start by 

establishing a key at the base of the area to be filled that extends into competent material. A subdrain 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 79 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

could be placed at the back of the key to minimize future groundwater accumulation and at selected 

higher elevations during the site grading. A typical fill slope would be constructed at a 2 to 1 (horizontal to 

vertical) inclination with compacted fill soils. With some of the constraints of the site, steeper slopes may 

be desirable in order to maintain existing beach widths or to minimize grading. Steeper slopes can be 

constructed by the incorporation of geogrid reinforcement into the compacted fill soils or by the use of a 

soil-cement mixture. 

Other mitigative measures for improving surficial slope stability are available in confined property areas 

requiring steeper as-built facilities. These include sand-cement buttresses, pipe and board retaining walls, 

and veneered tie back walls. 

Stabilization of Bluff Tops

Where the tracks are located up-slope, without adequate setback from an unstable bluff face, or where 

further erosion would reduce this setback to an unreasonable distance, additional bluff top stabilization 

would be needed. Where other concerns preclude disturbance outside the right of way, stabilization of 

the tracks from the bluff top may be desirable. A series of soldier piles may be considered for support of 

the track bed. Soldier piles generally consist of a series on concrete encased I-Beams placed in a row 

adjacent to the track. They may be used in conjunction with tie-backs as a versatile stabilization method 

(Leighton, 2001a). The tie-back system may also be utilized for the repair of over-steepened portions of 

the bluff. If a tie-back system is proposed on the bluff face, architectural wall facing could be sculpted with 

colored concrete to afford the wall a natural appearance. 

Drainage Improvements

Drainage over coastal bluffs occurs by both sheet flow and by earthen swales. Standing water observed 

along isolated areas adjacent to the existing rail alignments appears to be a combination of surface runoff 

and groundwater seepage that is generated by irrigation of upslope properties, and blocked by debris and 

soil creating localized areas of ponding. In other areas storm drains and subdrain outlets discharge on or 

near the top of slope creating an influx of water and increasing erosion. Some of the storm drain outlets 

leak and are in need of repair, and others simply discharge directly at the top of bluff. Improvements have 

already been made in some areas along coastal San Clemente; however, existing subdrains or 

stormdrains can be under-designed. Any proposed subsurface drainage system should be finalized after 

additional evaluation of possible water sources and depths. 

Groundwater Reduction

Subsurface drainage is a major problem along coastal bluffs and a reduction of subsurface water would 

greatly improve the geotechnical conditions. The source of the water includes infiltration from surface 

runoff, but the majority of the water comes from other influences upslope which likely cannot be controlled 

or eliminated. These sources include surface sources that may be collected and directed to the storm 

drain system but the majority of the water is likely the result of upslope infiltration of irrigation and storm 

water. The water flows as perched water through the relatively permeable surficial geologic units that 

overlie the formational materials below and as localized seepage zones within the formation where sandy 

zones or fracture systems are present. Specific dewatering methods, including installation of subdrains, 

dewatering wells, and horizontal drains, slurry walls, cut off walls and soil mixing of saturated zones 

should be addressed in site-specific design studies. The selection of a preferred dewatering method 

should be based in part on additional site investigations and ground water modeling. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 80 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

SEA LEVEL RISE 

Global warming and rising sea levels have become a growing concern as a coastal hazard. Current 

projections estimate that a rise in sea levels of 19 inches could occur by the year 2100 (with a possible 

range of 5 to 37 inches). The slope stability issues in the coastal bluff areas in Del Mar and San 

Clemente described above would be exacerbated in the future by rising water levels and storm surges. 

Such conditions would have a direct impact on beach erosion and on storm-protection and stabilization 

structures along the rail infrastructure on the coastline. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 81 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

Table 4.0 

Analysis/Comparison Table 

Impacts to Cultural Resources 

Los Angeles – Orange County – San Diego Region 

For each of the four locations in which screening recommendations are being made (San Juan 

Capistrano, San Clemente/Dana Point, Encinitas, and Del Mar), Table 4-0 shows the number of 

known archaeological sites located near each alignment option; the percentage (based on 

miles) of each alternative route that passes through areas originally developed during historical 

time periods; whether or not “traditional cultural properties” (sites that are have some 

demonstrated importance to the local Native American community) are present; and lastly, an 

overall ranking of the potential sensitivity of the alignment in regard to cultural resources. 

Percentage of Route Developed During 

Historic Periods

Number of 

Archaeological 

Sites <1900 1900-1929 1930-1958 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Properties 

(Yes/No) 

Overall 

Ranking 

(High, 

Medium, 

Low)

1.1.1.1.1.1 Alignments 

San Juan Capistrano – 

(San Juan Capistrano City 

Limits to Avenida 

Aeropuerto) – Covered 

TRENCH/Cut-Fill between 

Trabuco Creek and Avenida 

Aeropuerto (trench goes 

under San Juan Creek); 

Double tracking

19 10.5 15.0 20.5 0 High 

San Juan Capistrano

(San Juan Capistrano City 

Limits to Avenida 

Aeropuerto) – TUNNEL 

along I-5 between Hwy 73 

and Avenida Aeropuerto 

(tunnel under Trabuco 

Creek and San Juan 

Creek); Double tracking

8 1.0 15.0 20.5 0 Medium 

San Juan Capistrano 

(San Juan Capistrano City 

Limits to Avenida 

Aeropuerto) 

AT-Grade/Open TRENCH 

along east side of Trabuco 

Creek

2 1.0 15.0 20.5 0 High 

1.1.1.1.1.2 Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 

Station – parking spaces 

OR parking spaces/bypass 

tracks

6 10.0 45.5 25.0 0 High 

1.1.1.1.1.3 Alignments 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 82 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

Percentage of Route Developed During 

Historic Periods

Number of 

Archaeological 

Sites <1900 1900-1929 1930-1958 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Properties 

(Yes/No) 

Overall 

Ranking 

(High, 

Medium, 

Low)

Dana Point/San 

Clemente (Avenida 

Aeropuerto to San 

Onofre Power Plant) – 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; 

San Clemente – SHORT 

TRENCH; Double Tracking

16 <0.1 2.0 35.5 0 High 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente (Avenida 

Aeropuerto to San 

Onofre Power Plant) – 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; 

San Clemente – LONG 

TRENCH; Double Tracking

16 <0.1 2.0 35.5 0 High 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente (Avenida 

Aeropuerto to San 

Onofre Power Plant) – 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; 

San Clemente – SHORT 

TUNNEL; Double Tracking

9 <0.1 2.0 36.0 0 Medium 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente (Avenida 

Aeropuerto to San 

Onofre Power Plant) ; 

San Clemente – LONG 

ONE-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double Tracking

6 <0.1 2.0 35.5 0 Medium 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente (Avenida 

Aeropuerto to San 

Onofre Power Plant) –

San Clemente – LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double Tracking

6 <0.1 2.0 35.5 0 Medium 

1.1.1.1.1.4 Stations 

San Clemente Station – 

parking spaces OR parking 

spaces/bypass tracks

0 <0.1 25.0 26.5 0 High 

1.1.1.1.1.5 Alignments 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Encinitas City Limits To 

Solana Beach Station – 

Encinitas – AT-GRADE; 

Double Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon

4 <0.1 15.5 49.5 0 Medium 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 83 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

Percentage of Route Developed During 

Historic Periods

Number of 

Archaeological 

Sites <1900 1900-1929 1930-1958 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Properties 

(Yes/No) 

Overall 

Ranking 

(High, 

Medium, 

Low)

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Encinitas City Limits To 

Solana Beach Station – 

Encinitas – SHORT 

TRENCH; Double Tracking; 

crosses San Elijo Lagoon

4 <0.1 15.5 49.5 0 Medium 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

Encinitas City Limits To 

Solana Beach Station – 

Encinitas – LONG TRENCH; 

Double Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon

4 <0.1 15.5 49.5 0 Medium 

1.1.1.1.1.6 Stations 

Solana Beach Station – 

parking spaces OR parking 

spaces/bypass tracks

0 <0.1 2.0 5.5 0 Medium 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 84 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

Percentage of Route Developed During 

Historic Periods

Number of 

Archaeological 

Sites <1900 1900-1929 1930-1958 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Properties 

(Yes/No) 

Overall 

Ranking 

(High, 

Medium, 

Low)

1.1.1.1.1.7 Alignments 

Del Mar Solana Beach 

Station To Interstate 5 

– COVERED TRENCH on 

bluffs; crosses San 

Dieguito Lagoon, Los 

Peñasquitos L

12 <0.1 5.0 25.5 0 High 

Del Mar Solana Beach 

Station To Interstate 5 

– TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar; crosses San 

Dieguito Lagoon, 

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon

2 <0.1 5.0 25.5 0 High 

Del Mar Solana Beach 

Station To Interstate 5 

– TUNNEL along I-5; 

crosses San Dieguito 

Lagoon, Los Peñasquitos 

Lagoon

8 <0.1 5.0 25.5 0 Medium 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 85 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

TABLE 4-1 

Detailed Analysis/Comparison Table 

Impacts to Geology/Soils/Seismicity 

Los Angeles - Orange County - San Diego 

Table 4-1 provides an overview of the seismic conditions and geologic and soil characteristics 

found at each of the four locations where screening recommendations have been made. This 

overview includes the presence along or near the alternative routes of seismic hazards; fault 

crossings; percent of length of the alternative alignments with slope stability problems, areas of 

difficult excavation, and crossing through oil or gas fields; and the presence or absence of 

mineral resources. 

 Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of 

Length) 

Active 

Fault 

Crossings

(No. of 

Crossings)

Slope 

Stability

(% of 

Length) 

Difficult 

Excavation

(% of 

Length) 

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of 

Length) 

Mineral 

Resources

(Present, 

not 

present) 

San Juan Capistrano 

(City Limits to Avenida 

Aeropuerto)

 

Alignments 

Covered TRENCH/CutFill between Trabuco 

Creek and Avenida 

Aeropuerto (trench goes 

under San Juan Creek); 

Double tracking 

75 0 0 10 0 0 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between Hwy 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

(tunnel under Trabuco 

Creek and San Juan 

Creek); Double tracking 

26 0 0 10 0 0 

AT-Grade/Open 

TRENCH along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

0 0 76 0 0 0

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano Present 0 0 0 0 0 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 86 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

 Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of 

Length) 

Active 

Fault 

Crossings

(No. of 

Crossings)

Slope 

Stability

(% of 

Length) 

Difficult 

Excavation

(% of 

Length) 

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of 

Length) 

Mineral 

Resources

(Present, 

not 

present) 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente 

(Avenida Aeropuerto To San 

Onofre Power Plant)

 

Alignments 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TRENCH; Double Tracking 

(crosses San Mateo and 

San Onofre Creeks) 

27 0 76 9 0 0 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - LONG 

TRENCH; Double Tracking 

(crosses San Mateo and 

San Onofre Creeks) 

27 0 76 23 0 0 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL; Double Tracking 

(crosses San Mateo and 

San Onofre Creeks) 

0 0 0 14 0 0 

San Clemente - LONG 

ONE-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and San Onofre 

Creeks) 

0 0 0 50 0 0 

San Clemente - LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and San Onofre 

Creeks) 

0 0 0 50 0 0 

Stations 

San Clemente Present 0 0 Present 0 0 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 87 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

 Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of 

Length) 

Active 

Fault 

Crossings

(No. of 

Crossings)

Slope 

Stability

(% of 

Length) 

Difficult 

Excavation

(% of 

Length) 

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of 

Length) 

Mineral 

Resources

(Present, 

not 

present) 

Encinitas/Solana Beach 

(Encinitas City Limits to 

Solana Beach Station)

 

Alignments 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; 

Double Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon 

15 0 4 0 0 0 

Encinitas - SHORT 

TRENCH; Double Tracking; 

crosses San Elijo Lagoon 

0 0 2 0 0 0 

Encinitas - LONG 

TRENCH; Double Tracking; 

crosses San Elijo Lagoon 

21 0 0 0 0 0 

Stations 

Solana Beach Present 0 0 0 0 0 

Del Mar(Solana Beach 

Station to I-5/805 Split)

 

Alignments 

COVERED TRENCH on 

bluffs; crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos Lagoons 

60 0 21 3 0 0 

TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar; crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos Lagoons 

61 0 0 3 0 0 

TUNNEL along I-5; 

crosses San Dieguito and 

Los Penasquitos Lagoons 

25 0 0 4 0 0 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 88 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

TABLE 4-1 

Table 4-2 

Detailed Analysis/Comparison Table 

Impacts to Visual Resources 

(Los Angeles - Orange County - San Diego) 

Table 4-2 notes the potential impacts of the various alignment options on visual resources, 

including scenic corridors, viewpoints and overlooks, potential for high visual contrasts between 

the rail option and the surrounding environment, and the degree to which an option might create 

or increase shadow impacts. 

 Scenic 

Corridors 

Impacted 

(miles) 1

Scenic Viewing 

Points/Overlooks 

number within 

1/4 miles 

(#) 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Shadow Impacts

(H/M/L) 

San Juan Capistrano 

(City Limits to Avenida 

Aeropuerto)

 

Alignments 

Covered TRENCH/CutFill between Trabuco 

Creek and Avenida 

Aeropuerto (trench goes 

under San Juan Creek); 

Double tracking 

0 0 Low 

rail would be moved into 

covered and open trenches 

but would require new 

pedestrian overpasses 

downtown, and fencing along

open trench areas 

Low 

pedestrian 

overpasses would 

create new shadow 

effects in downtown 

area 

TUNNEL along I-5 

between Hwy 73 and 

Avenida Aeropuerto 

(tunnel under Trabuco 

Creek and San Juan 

Creek); Double tracking 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

existing tracks would be 

removed into tunnel; new 

impacts would occur aqt 

tunnel portals but would be 

relatively minor 

No Impact 

AT-Grade/Open 

Trench along east side of 

Trabuco Creek 

0 0 Medium 

New impacts to residential 

and commercial areas on 

west side of creek 

Low 

proposed structure 

widening over San 

Juan Creek would 

increase shadow 

impacts but be 

consistent with 

existing environment

Stations 

San Juan Capistrano 0 0 Low 

proposed improvements to 

existing station would be 

consistent with existing 

environment 

No Impact 

1

 1 11 1. There are no designated California State Scenic Routes in the visual resources study area for this project. While the

existing LOSSAN rail corridor does provide views of the ocean and open spaces in some portions of its route, the established rail 

corridor itself is not considered a scenic corridor in the analysis represented in this table. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 89 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

 Scenic 

Corridors 

Impacted 

(miles) 1

Scenic Viewing 

Points/Overlooks 

number within 

1/4 miles 

(#) 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Shadow Impacts

(H/M/L) 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente 

(Avenida Aeropuerto To 

San Onofre Power Plant)

 

Alignments 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking 

0 0 High 

covered trench along 

coastline would reduce 

visibility of existing rail 

corridor, but construction 

along toe of bluffs would 

require seawalls that would 

degrade existing viewshed; 

major construction and 

transition structures on beach 

would impact visual 

environment 

No Impact 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - LONG 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking 

0 0 High 

covered trench along 

coastline would reduce 

visibility of existing rail 

corridor, but construction 

along toe of bluffs would 

require seawalls that would 

degrade existing viewshed; 

major construction on beach 

would impact visual 

environment 

No Impact 

Dana Point Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

tunnel would remove existing

rail along the coast and 

improve the existing beach 

aesthetics 

No Impact 

San Clemente - LONG 

ONE-SEGMENT TUNNEL; 

Double Tracking 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

tunnel would remove existing

rail along the coast and 

improve the existing beach 

aesthetics 

No Impact 

San Clemente - LONG 

TWO-SEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

tunnel would remove existing

rail along the coast and 

improve the existing beach 

aesthetics 

No Impact 

1. There are no designated California State Scenic Routes in the visual resources study area for this project. While the existing LOSSAN 

rail corridor does provide views of the ocean and open spaces in some portions of its route, the established rail corridor itself is not 

considered a scenic corridor in the analysis represented in this table. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 90 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

 Scenic 

Corridors 

Impacted 

(miles) 1

Scenic Viewing 

Points/Overlooks 

number within 

1/4 miles 

(#) 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Encinitas/Solana Beach

(Encinitas City Limits to 

Solana Beach Station)

 

Alignments 

Encinitas - AT-GRADE; 

Double Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon 

0 0 Low 

proposed improvements 

would be consistent with 

existing environment 

Low 

proposed grade 

separations and 

structure widening 

over lagoons would 

increase shadow 

impacts but would be 

consistent with 

existing environment

Encinitas - SHORT 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking; crosses San 

Elijo Lagoon 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

covered trench would 

place existing tracks 

underground in part of 

the existing corridor 

Low 

proposed grade 

separations and 

structure widening 

over lagoons would 

increase shadow 

impacts but would be 

consistent with 

existing environment

Encinitas - LONG 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking; crosses San 

Elijo Lagoon 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

covered trench would 

place existing tracks 

underground in part of 

the existing corridor 

Low 

structure widening 

over lagoons would 

increase shadow 

impacts but would be 

consistent with 

existing environment

 

Solana Beach 0 0 Low 

proposed improvements 

at existing station would 

be consistent with 

existing environment 

No impact 

 

1 There are no designated California State Scenic Routes in the visual resources study area for this project. While the existing

LOSSAN rail corridor does provide views of the ocean and open spaces in some portions of its route, the established rail corridor

itself is not considered a scenic corridor in the analysis represented in this table.
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – R EVISION 1 Page 91 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A

 Scenic 

Corridors 

Impacted 

(miles) 1

Scenic Viewing 

Points/Overlooks 

number within 

1/4 miles 

(#) 

High Contrast Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Shadow Impacts 

(H/M/L) 

Del Mar(Solana Beach 

Station to I-5/805 Split)

 

Alignments 

COVERED TRENCH on 

bluffs; crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos Lagoons 

0 0 Medium to High 

trench option would 

remove existing tracks on 

the bluffs into a covered 

trench, but seawalls 

and/or tie-back walls may 

be needed to stabilize 

bluffs for the long term 

Low 

proposed structure 

widening over lagoons 

would increase 

shadow impacts, but 

would be consistent 

with existing 

environment 

TUNNEL under Camino 

Del Mar; crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos Lagoons 

0 0 Beneficial Impact 

tunnel option would 

remove existing tracks 

from the bluffs and place 

them underground 

Low 

proposed structure 

widening over lagoons 

would increase 

shadow impacts, but 

would be consistent 

with existing 

environment 

TUNNEL along I-5; 

crosses San Dieguito and 

Los Penasquitos Lagoons

0 0 Medium 

tunnel option would 

remove existing tracks 

and place underground, 

but new visual impacts to 

residential views would 

result from elevated rail 

structure south of San 

Dieguito Lagoon, and 

from tunnel 

portal/transition area 

located between two 

residential areas 

Low 

tunnel option would 

remove existing 

structure across 

Penasquitos Lagoon, 

but structure over San 

Dieguito Lagoon 

would be widened, 

and elevated structure 

across Crest Canyon 

would add new 

shadow impacts 

1. There are no designated California State Scenic Routes in the visual resources study area for this project. While the existing 

LOSSAN rail corridor does provide views of the ocean and open spaces in some portions of its route, the established rail corridor 

itself is not considered a scenic corridor in the analysis represented in this table. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

A PPENDIX A

Page 92

TABLE 4-3 

Detailed Analysis/Comparison Table 

Impacts to Land Use, Planned Land Use and Land Use and Land Use Policy, 

Development Patterns, Demographics, Communities and Neighborhoods, Housing & Economics 

(Los Angeles-Orange County-San Diego Region) 

As part of the evaluation of land uses, Table 4-3 summarizes compatibility issues for stations and alignments; 

Environmental Justice factors including the percentage of persons along the alignment option living below the federal 

Poverty Line (P) and the percent of minority population (M). The table also shows the number of residential housing 

units within 1⁄4 mile of the alignment, as well as the total non-residential acreage within 1⁄4 mile of the alignment. 

 

Percent of 

Residential 

Acreage1

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Population Under 

Poverty Line) 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Minority 

Population - Block 

Group and 

County) 

Number of 

Residential Units 

within 1⁄4 mile of 

Alignment 

Non-Residential 

Acreage within 1⁄4 

mile of Alignnment

San Juan 

Capistrano 

(City Limits to 

Avenida Aeropuerto)

 

Alignments 

Covered 

TRENCH/Cut-Fill 

between Trabuco 

Creek and Avenida 

Aeropuerto (trench 

goes under San 

Juan Creek); 

Double tracking 

24.44% BG = 8.92%; 

County = 7.74% 

BG = 45.18% and 

County = 48.86% 

18,725 368 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

A PPENDIX A

Page 93

 

Percent of 

Residential 

Acreage1

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Population Under 

Poverty Line) 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Minority 

Population - Block 

Group and 

County) 

Number of 

Residential Units 

within 1⁄4 mile of 

Alignment 

Non-Residential 

Acreage within 1⁄4 

mile of Alignnment

TUNNEL along I5 between Hwy 73 

and Avenida 

Aeropuerto (tunnel 

under Trabuco 

Creek and San 

Juan Creek); 

Double tracking 

23.95% BG = 8.92%; 

County = 7.74% 

BG = 45.18% and 

County = 48.86% 

14,120 393 

AT-Grade/Open 

Trench along east 

side of Trabuco 

Creek 

65.84% BG = 11.06%; 

County = 7.74% 

BG = 46.71%; 

County = 48.86% 

11,676 101 

Stations 

San Juan 

Capistrano 

36.24% BG = 8.14%; 

County = 7.74% 

BG = 66.13% and 

County = 48.86% 

1,487 8 

Dana Point/San 

Clemente 

(Avenida Aeropuerto 

To San Onofre 

Power Plant)

 

Alignments 

Dana Point 

Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and 

San Onofre 

Creeks) 

41.28% BG = 6.57%; 

County = 7.74 and 

10.34% 

BG = 32.88% and 

County = 48.86 and 

45.11% 

42,184 340 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

A PPENDIX A

Page 94

 

Percent of 

Residential 

Acreage1

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Population Under 

Poverty Line) 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Minority 

Population - Block 

Group and 

County) 

Number of 

Residential Units 

within 1⁄4 mile of 

Alignment 

Non-Residential 

Acreage within 1⁄4 

mile of Alignnment

Dana Point 

Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - LONG 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and 

San Onofre 

Creeks) 

41.28% BG = 6.57%; 

County = 7.74 and 

10.34% 

BG = 32.88% and 

County = 48.86 and 

45.11% 

42,184 617 

Dana Point 

Curve 

Realignment; San 

Clemente - SHORT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and 

San Onofre 

Creeks) 

38.20% BG = 6.57%; 

County = 7.74 and 

10.34% 

BG = 32.88% and 

County = 48.86 and 

45.11% 

45,068 617 

San Clemente - 

LONG ONESEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and 

San Onofre 

Creeks) 

42.19% BG = 6.57%; 

County = 7.74 and 

10.34% 

BG = 32.88% and 

County = 48.86 and 

45.11% 

50,003 560 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

A PPENDIX A

Page 95

 

Percent of 

Residential 

Acreage1

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Population Under 

Poverty Line) 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Minority 

Population - Block 

Group and 

County) 

Number of 

Residential Units 

within 1⁄4 mile of 

Alignment 

Non-Residential 

Acreage within 1⁄4 

mile of Alignnment

San Clemente - 

LONG TWOSEGMENT 

TUNNEL; Double 

Tracking (crosses 

San Mateo and 

San Onofre 

Creeks) 

42.19% BG = 6.57%; 

County = 7.74 and 

10.34% 

BG = 32.88% and 

County = 48.86 and 

45.11% 

50,003 560 

Encinitas/Solana 

Beach 

(Encinitas City Limits 

to Solana Beach 

Station)

 

Alignments 

Encinitas - ATGRADE; Double 

Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon 

54.31% BG = 6.77%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 20.41% and 

County = 45.11% 

12,342 237 

Encinitas - 

SHORT TRENCH; 

Double Tracking; 

crosses San Elijo 

Lagoon 

54.31% BG = 6.77%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 20.41% and 

County = 45.11% 

12,342 237 

Encinitas - LONG 

TRENCH; Double 

Tracking; crosses 

San Elijo Lagoon 

54.31% BG = 6.77%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 20.41% and 

County = 45.11% 

12,342 217 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

A PPENDIX A

Page 96

 

Percent of 

Residential 

Acreage1

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Population Under 

Poverty Line) 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts 

(Percent of 

Minority 

Population - Block 

Group and 

County) 

Number of 

Residential Units 

within 1⁄4 mile of 

Alignment 

Non-Residential 

Acreage within 1⁄4 

mile of Alignnment

Stations 

Solana Beach 3.03% BG = 3.55%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 12.13% and 

County = 45.11% 

1,609 6 

Del Mar(Solana 

Beach Station to I5/805 Split)

 

Alignments 

COVERED 

TRENCH on bluffs; 

crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos 

Lagoons 

21.75% BG = 6.11%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 19.98% and 

County = 45.11% 

16,031 256 

TUNNEL under 

Camino Del Mar; 

crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos 

Lagoons 

27.77% BG = 6.11%; 

County = 10.34% 

BG = 19.98% and 

County = 45.11% 

17,126 255 

TUNNEL along I5; crosses San 

Dieguito and Los 

Penasquitos 

Lagoons 

52.75% BG = County = 

10.34% 

BG = 21.56% 

County = 45.11% 

14,228 324 

Note: 

1. Based on a 1/4-mile study area on either side of the rail or highway corridor. Potential property takes would be very limited 

due to the location of most alignments in or adjacent to the existing LOSSAN rail corridor. See Table 4-1A for information 

on expected land use impacts of property takes and access/barrier issues. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A 

Page 97 

Table 4-3A 

Potential Land Use Impacts on 

Property and Community/Coastal Access 

Table 4-3A summarizes the potential need in each alignment option to acquire land or 

easement agreements (some underground, for tunnel options), and how the options would 

affect access issues (such as creation or removal of a barrier between a residential community 

and a commercial/retail district, or between the coast and other areas.) 

CITY 

SEGMENT 

POTENTIAL PROPERTY/EASEMENT 

ACQUISITION

ACCESS 

San Juan 

Capistrano 

• Cut/cover option through 

downtown: 

o Industrial structures/land 

along San Juan Creek; 

parking structure and land 

in downtown area 

• Trabuco Creek option: 

o Commercial and industrial 

structures/land; private 

high school land; (City may 

be able to provide land 

exchanges) 

• I-5 tunnel option: 

o Land at portal areas 

o Industrial structures/land 

along San Juan Creek 

o Commercial/agricultural 

land at north end of 

alignment 

• All options improve access 

between the historic 

residential area of Los Rios 

and downtown area, 

however, Trabuco Creek and 

I-5 tunnel options offer the 

greatest benefit by 

completely removing the 

tracks from the downtown 

area 

San 

Clemente 

• Short trench option: 

o Land south of the pier for 

new station 

• Long trench option: 

o Residential land south of N. 

El Camino Real 

o Land south of the pier for 

new station 

• Short I-5 tunnel: 

o Commercial/residential land 

south of Avenida Pico 

o Vacant land at Avenida Pico 

for new station 

• Long I-5 tunnels: 

o Industrial land north of 

Stonehill Rd (San Juan 

Capistrano) 

• All options would improve 

access to the Pacific 

shoreline; however, the short 

trench option would involve 

transition structures on the 

beach, and both trench 

options would require major 

construction for an extended 

time period on the beach. 

The tunnel options offer the 

greatest benefit by the 

completely removing the 

tracks from the beach 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX A 

Page 98 

CITY 

SEGMENT 

POTENTIAL PROPERTY/EASEMENT 

ACQUISITION

ACCESS 

Encinitas • All options: 

o Commercial land in the 

vicinity of Leucadia Blvd 

and Pacific Coast Hwy 

• Short or Long trench option 

offers the best opportunity for 

frequent pedestrian crossings 

connecting commercial and 

residential land uses 

Del Mar • Trench in bluffs: 

o Land in the vicinity of 

Jimmy Durante Blvd and 

Camino Del Mar 

• Camino Del Mar tunnel: 

o Vacant land in the vicinity 

of Torrey Pines Rd and 

LOSSAN Corridor 

• Penasquitos Lagoon bypass tunnel: 

o Industrial land along 

Sorrento Valley Rd 

o Residential land along south 

side of San Diequito Lagoon 

• Camino Del Mar tunnel and 

Penasquitos Lagoon bypass 

options improve access to the 

shoreline by completely 

removing the tracks from the 

bluffs 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 99 

APPENDIX B - 

ANALYSIS OF INLAND BYPASS 

ALTERNATIVE 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 100 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

• The July, 2001 "High-Speed Train Alignments/Stations Screening Evaluation" report 

evaluated several alignment alternatives in south Orange County, among them two 

alternatives that would bypass sensitive beachside and historic areas in San Juan 

Capistrano (SJC), Dana Point (DP) and San Clemente (SC). 

• The two alternatives were the SR-241 alignment (alternative C4), and a high level of 

improvement of the LOSSAN corridor (alternative C1b or the LOSSAN-b alternative) that 

features bypass tunnels along I-5 in SJC, DP and SC 

• Based on the evaluation in the July Report and on comments received from the public 

and affected agencies, the September, 2001 "Draft First Screening Report" 

recommended that the SR-241 alternative be dropped from further consideration 

• Since then, requests have been received to provide greater information about the 

analysis that led to this conclusion. This memo draws on the July 2001 analysis, and 

provides supplemental observations based on the data. As the report also recommends 

retaining the LOSSAN alternative featuring the bypass tunnels, the evaluation is 

presented as a comparison of the two alternatives. 

2.0 ADVANTAGES OF THE SR-241 ALIGNMENT 

• Completely bypasses sensitive areas in SJC, DP and SC 

• Allows electrified, dedicated system to extend to Oceanside - transferless from 

Oceanside; more reliable operations 

• Possibilities for joint design/construction with SR-241 extension - potential for cost 

savings 

• As a dedicated high-speed rail corridor with 3.5% gradient options, requires less 

tunneling than I-5 bypass, thereby avoiding the inherent uncertainties and potential 

problems of a tunneling solution 

• Avoids need for s-curve when transitioning from LOSSAN corridor to I-5 short tunnel 

option, with its attendant speed restrictions 

• Along with the I-5 alternative, provides a second alternative to expanding the LOSSAN 

corridor along its present right-of-way 

3.0 DISADVANTAGES OF THE SR-241 ALIGNMENT 

Engineering 

• Topography of both the existing and proposed extension of the SR-241 corridor is rolling, 

with several 3%-5% grades, and many canyon, water course and wildlife corridor 

crossings – this requires extensive aerial structures to negotiate 

• Being a new alignment, significantly more work is required relative to upgrading the 

existing LOSSAN alignment 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 101 

Environmental and Community Impacts 

• Environmental sensitivities in the SR-241 corridor (can reference Section 4.0) 

• Community impacts - the existing LOSSAN corridor between the Irvine Transportation 

Center and SJC generally runs parallel to I-5 in a corridor that is predominately 

commercial and light-industrial, with pockets of residential communities through Mission 

Viejo. In contrast, the existing SR-241 corridor is predominately flanked by residential 

communities and open space, as will be the southern extension 

• Transition from LOSSAN to SR-241 at Irvine - as studied, the alignment transitions from 

the I-5/LOSSAN corridor in southern Irvine over to the SR-241 corridor by following the 

SR-133 Toll Corridor. As the I-5/LOSSAN/SR-133 junction occurs north of the existing 

Irvine Transportation Center, this would require either a separate HSR station, or the 

relocation of the ITC north to the vicinity of Jeffrey Road, which is largely residential. The 

City of Irvine is on record as opposed to any relocation of the ITC. An alternative would 

be to transition over to SR-241 south of the ITC along the southern edge of the El Toro 

site. This was briefly examined, but felt to be highly problematic. There are three basic 

options, two of which involve using arterial corridors (Alton Parkway and Bake Parkway) 

that are meandering and largely developed on either side. The third option involves 

directly traversing the El Toro property, which could be challenging with the current plan 

of a large urban park. 

Ridership 

• Due to length and terrain, the SR-241 routes would have longer travel times than the 

LOSSAN route - 37 min from Oceanside to Anaheim, vs. 34 minutes. 

• The Authority adopted recommendation to eliminate a dedicated high-speed connection 

through coastal San Diego further erodes the benefits for a dedicated connection through 

south Orange County - the ridership benefits of extending a dedicated high-speed system 

to Oceanside (i.e. without being able to penetrate further into San Diego County) are 

marginal 

Dedicated vs. Shared-Use 

• The SR-241 alternative was configured and studied as a dedicated electrified high-speed 

rail corridor that would not share track with any of the existing services in the LOSSAN 

corridor. 

• If corridor is shared with other passenger services - Amtrak/Metrolink - impact to service 

at stations in Irvine, Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente Pier - 

stations would be deleted, or relocated inland to the SR-241 corridor, which would not be 

as accessible to most residents of Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Beach, 

Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, likely causing 

ridership on Amtrak and/or Metrolink to suffer: it is questionable whether either entity 

would split service. 

• If corridor is shared with BNSF Freight Service - SR-241 was studied as a dedicated 

passenger high-speed rail system, using maximum grades appropriate for passengeronly systems (3.5% max. sustained, up to 5% tolerable for short segments). The SR-241 

alignment has several grades in the 3-5% range, most of which could be negotiated with 

structures for a passenger-only system. If the line were to be reconfigured for freight, 

which requires a maximum 1.2% sustained grade, the line would require extensive 

tunneling, far beyond the 14 miles of tunnel contained in the LOSSAN alternative. A 

preliminary assessment indicates that the extent of tunneling could be between 20 and 

30 miles. The unit-cost and extent of tunneling could be lower, due to the relative 

openness of the corridor relative to I-5 in SJC and SC, and the possibility of joint-design 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 102 

and construction with the SR-241 toll road extension. However, the sheer length of 

required tunneling would cause the total cost for the SR-241 alternative to be much 

higher than the LOSSAN alternative with bypass tunnels. 

4.0 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL DATA FROM SCREENING 

EVALUATION 

The following technical data was taken directly from the July 2001 Screening Evaluation Report 

put out by the California High Speed Rail Authority, and relates directly to the alignment 

alternative traversing the proposed State Route 241 Toll Corridor in southern Orange County. 

OPERATIONAL ISSUES 

This option follows the alignments of SR-241 and I-5, and has the longest distance and the 

second longest trip times. Due to moderately steep grades along the existing and proposed SR241 alignment, this option would only be suitable for dedicated VHS or maglev operation. 

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES 

Between Irvine and San Onofre his alignment would follow the SR-241 toll road, which has a 

rolling profile, requiring a tunnel section near Arroyo Trabuco. South of Oso Parkway, the 

alignment follows the proposed “Far East” alignment alternatives for SR-241; the highway does 

not yet exist south of Oso Parkway. In this section, the alignment crosses several canyons and 

rivers, requiring long-span aerial construction. If the SR-241 were not built along the “Far East” 

alignment, the construction of this option would include substantial earthwork between Oso 

Parkway and San Onofre, which would otherwise be accomplished by the highway construction. 

Assuming that the SR-241 does follow this alignment, this option would have fewer construction 

issues than both the long split tunnel and short tunnel options in San Clemente. 

CAPITAL COST 

This option is estimated to have a very high capital cost due to long stretches of aerial 

construction and tunneling with rolling profile. 

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND CONFLICTS 

The proposed alignment follows a toll highway through agricultural lands west of MCAS El Toro 

(closed). Large tracts of residential development occur in the cities of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo 

and Rancho Santa Margarita. The portion of SR-241 between Antonio Parkway and Oso Parkway 

is open space/preserve and is largely undeveloped immediately adjacent to the toll road. South of 

Oso Parkway, the option follows the proposed toll road alignment through largely undeveloped 

land. The alignment passes west of the General Thomas F. Riley Wilderness Park and just east 

of the Rancho Mission Viejo Ecological Reserve. Land uses in San Diego County are largely 

open space and recreational. 

VISUAL QUALITY IMPACTS 

The northern portion of this option is located within the suburban residential and office areas of 

Tustin and Irvine. The alignment transitions to suburban residential development and then into 

undeveloped areas of rolling hills with natural vegetation to the south. The alignment option would 

have minor to significant visual impacts to the surrounding communities because the majority of 

the alignment option would be aerial on existing freeway alignments, along with open space in 

southern Orange County. Alignment portions of Camp Pendleton would be at-grade with a small 

portion being trenched. No communities or neighborhoods would be adversely divided by the 

proposed alignment option. 

WETLAND RESOURCES 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 103 

There are 24 wetland and riparian areas that are known to occur within this option. These include 

the SARC, Santiago Creek, El Modena Irvine Channel, Peters Canyon Wash, Borrego Canyon 

Wash, San Diego Creek, Aliso Creek, Oso Creek, Trabuco Creek, San Juan Creek, San Mateo 

Creek, San Onofre Creek, Horno Canyon Creek, Las Pulgas Canyon Creek, Santa Margarita 

River, and the San Luis Rey River, Upper Oso Reservoir, Trabuco Creek, Tijeras Canyon Creek, 

San Juan Lakes, Christianitos Creek, San Mateo Creek, and San Onofre Creek. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Major surface water resources crossed by this alignment option include the Santa Ana, Santa 

Margarita, and San Luis Rey Rivers. Other water resources crossed include 12 creeks: Fullerton, 

Carbon, Crescent, Santiago, San Diego, Aliso, Oso, Trabuco, San Mateo, San Onofre, Horno 

Canyon, Tijeras Canyon, Christianitos, San Mateo and Las Pulgas Canyon. Additional water 

resources crossed include the El Modena Irvine Channel, San Juan Lakes, Upper Oso Reservoir 

and Peters Canyon Wash. 

FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS 

SR-241 crosses numerous 100-year floodplain zones and is associated with unnamed drainages, 

tributaries and small creeks. Major floodplains crossed include a number of 100-year floodplain 

zones that are crossed in south Orange County that vary in size from 100 to 5,000 feet along I-5 

corridor including Trabuco and San Juan Creeks. 

THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACTS 

The following 21 threatened and endangered species and species of special concern are known 

to occur within this alignment option along the SR-241: 

• Coastal Cactus Wren (Species of Special Concern) 

• Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Threatened: Federal listing) 

• Western Spadefoot (Species of Special Concern) 

• Orange-Throated Whiptail (Species of Special Concern) 

• Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Endangered: Federal listing) 

• San Diego Horned Lizard (Species of Special Concern) 

• Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Habitat (Species of Special Concern) 

• Valley Needle Grass Grassland (Species of Special Concern) 

• Pallid Bat (Species of Special Concern) 

• Southern Mixed Riparian Forest (Species of Special Concern) 

• Long-Eared Owl (Species of Special Concern) 

• Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Woodland (Species of Special Concern) 

• Southern Tarplant (Species of Special Concern) 

• Many-Stemmed Dudleya (Species of Special Concern) 

• Arroyo Chub (Species of Special Concern) 

• Payson’s Jewel-Flower (Species of Special Concern) 

• Arroyo Toad (Endangered: Federal listing) 

• Thread-Leaved Brodiaea (Threatened: Federal, Endangered: State listing) 

• Tidewater Goby (Endangered: Federal listing) 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX B

Page 104 

• Least Bell’s Vireo (Endangered: Federal and State listing) 

• Southern Foredunes (Species of Special Concern) 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS (DEMOGRAPHICS) 

Minority populations that are potentially affected by this option were identified in several 1990 

Census block groups in an unincorporated portion of Orange County. The minority population 

potentially affected within these block groups was estimated to be approximately 50 people. No 

low-income households were identified in the cities along this alignment option. 

COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS 

From Irvine, this alignment follows SR-133 north and intersects SR-241 north of MCAS El Toro. 

The alignment continues through the cities of Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa 

Margarita, and O’Neill Regional Park. The portion of SR-241 between Antonio Parkway and Oso 

Parkway is open space/preserve and is largely undeveloped immediately adjacent to the toll road. 

From the intersection with Oso Parkway the alignment continues along the proposed continuation 

of the SR-241. It traverses largely undeveloped land within the Orange County including Rancho 

Trabuco and Rancho Mission Viejo. The alignment passes west of the General Thomas F. Riley 

Wilderness Park, crosses SR-74, and passes just east of the Rancho Mission Viejo Ecological 

Reserve. It enters the County of San Diego just past Avenida Pico. This portion of the alignment 

traverses through San Onofre State Beach west of U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. 

The proposed SR-241 alignment terminates at the I-5/Basilone Road interchange, near San 

Onofre. This option would not cause any new physical barriers or divisions within the 

communities and neighborhoods listed because the alignment would follow existing or proposed 

transportation corridors. 

If the SR-241 did not follow the “Far East” alignment alternative, this option would cross through 

open space planned for residential development, and could potentially form a barrier. 

FARMLAND IMPACTS 

From the current terminus of SR-241 at Oso Parkway south to SR-74 there are scattered parcels 

of prime and unique farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance. From SR-74 south to San 

Onofre there are parcels of prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance located south 

of Christianitos Road in unincorporated San Diego County. Farmland impacts would be the same 

as Option C2, from Anaheim to Irvine and San Onofre to Oceanside. 

PARKS & RECREATION/WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPACTS 

The following two parks and recreation resources are known to occur within or along this option. 

• O’Neill Regional Park 

• San Onofre State Beach 

SOILS/SLOPES CONSTRAINTS 

Throughout southern Orange County, all the alignments traverse areas subject to liquefaction and 

earthquake induced slides. The liquefaction zone extends eastward into the Cleveland National 

Forest. 

Portions of this option south of the existing SR-241 terminus would be subject to slides and 

liquefaction in areas of cut slopes. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX C

Page 105 

APPENDIX C - 

EXHIBITS USED IN SCREENING OF 

OPTIONS IN KEY LOCATIONS 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX C

Page 106 

The following Appendix contains copies of the exhibits used in the screening of options 

in key locations along the LOSSAN corridor, and discussed in Section 6. 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 Page 107 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D - 

CORRESPONDENCE 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 Page 108 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX D

The following is the text of an email from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent to the Department’s 

LOSSAN Project Manager on May 05, 2003 (formatted for improved readability) 

Please see comments from Fish & Wildlife on the screening report and on 

theinland bypass corridor. 

Thank you. 

Arturo Jacobo 

Project Manager 

California Department of Transportation 

2829 Juan Street, MS 27 

San Diego Ca, 92110 

Tel. (619) 688-6816 

Fax (619) 688-3217 

----- Forwarded by Arturo Jacobo/D11/Caltrans/CAGov on 05/05/03 08:58 AM 

Arturo, 

The Service does not support any inland route in Orange County. The 

following are the Service's main points regarding the inland route in 

Orange County: 

The rail routes proposed are parallel to the Southern Orange County 

Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project alternatives along only the 

built/tolled alignments, plus connections to/through the area north of Rancho 

Mission Viejo. Any of these routes may have adverse affects to listed and 

sensitive species in the project area and may negatively impact habitat 

reserve design that is currently in planning under the Southern Subregion of 

Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan 

(NCCP/HCP) and Special Area Management Plan/Master Streambed Alteration 

Agreement (SAMP/MSAA) processes. In particular, an inland route through 

Chiquita Canyon would directly impact and fragment a core coastal California 

gnatcatcher population. Also, because the rail corridor could not stay with 

any of the proposed toll road alignments due to engineering geometrics, there 

would be increased fragmentation of habitat for numerous species. 

Listed/proposed species known in the railroad project area include: 

coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 

least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 

southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) 

San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) 

arroyo toad (Bufo califonicus) 

pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) 

southern steelhead (Oncorhunchus mykiss) 

tidewater goby (Eucuclogobius newberryi) 

thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) 

Listed/proposed species that may occur in the project area include: 

light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) 
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN – REVISION 1 Page 109 

L OS A NGELES TO S AN D IEGO P ROPOSED R AIL C ORRIDOR I MPROVEMENT S TUDIES

APPENDIX D

California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) 

yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Other sensitive species that the Science Advisors identified as effective 

"umbrella species" for consideration in the NCCP/HCP and SAMP/MSAA processes 

include: 

American badger(Taxidea taxus) 

bobcat (Lynx rufus) 

coyote (Canis latrans) 

mountain lion (Felis concolor) 

red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

barn owl (Tyto alba) 

The following plant species are being considered in regional planning 

efforts: 

intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii intermedius) 

many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) 

southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi australis) 

Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) 

The Science Advisors considered another approximately 60 animal species and 

23 plant species as Group 2 and 3 species that may be best conserved by 

either protecting habitats at a landscape level or at the species level. 

Most of these species and those noted above will receive some level of review 

and consideration during planning of an effective habitat reserve design 

under the NCCP/HCP and SAMP/MSAA processes. Rail alignments that cross 

reserve areas may directly impact species in the path of the alignment and 

fragment the reserve thereby reducing its capability to conserve target 

species. Actual effects to any particular species would obviously depend on 

the particular alignment, ecology and biology of that species, and the 

specific habitat reserve design. 

Given the number of federally listed species (there may be more State 

listed species to consider as well), sensitive species and habitat reserve 

design issues, we suggest that other rail options be considered, such as 

double-tracking of the existing rail line, rather than pursuing a new 

alignment through a very sensitive portion of Orange County. 

Thanks 

John DiGregoria 

Fish and Wildlife Biologist 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92009 

760 431-9440 

fax 431-5902 

John_DiGregoria@r1.fws.gov